Trump news conference

[odysseus2000]

I don't think it is the nation state that has the tendency to create wars. Sadly the wars are created by the kind of men that created the geopolitical /cultural identity of the nation state and who were probably related to the same folk who created the tribal empires that have come and gone over a thousand years or more and well before we adopted the more recent terminology of the nation state which I would suggest may have been largely constructed and promoted to protect land and asset ownership.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in what I wrote.

But not with standing humans innate and long expressed tendency to break the heads of others who don't agree with them, the emergence of the nation state with all its resources allows for the making of much more powerful tools for the breaking of heads and for the ability to maintain during peace time battalions of folk whose training is in the breaking of heads such that should a moment occur when it is decided to break someones head there are plenty of tools and folk ready for the job. All of these folk can say they are on their murderous mission to uphold the sovereignty of the nation state and can look to the money paid to them for their work from the nation state as justification.

Of course the absence of any, so far at least, evidence for intelligent life beyond the earth is seen as at least circumstantial support for the idea that all advanced civilisation destroy themselves.

Regards,

[mikel2]

>>>>>But not with standing humans innate and long expressed tendency to break the heads of others who don't agree with them, the emergence of the nation state with all its resources allows for the making of much more powerful tools for the breaking of heads and for the ability to maintain during peace time battalions of folk whose training is in the breaking of heads such that should a moment occur when it is decided to break someones head there are plenty of tools and folk ready for the job. All of these folk can say they are on their murderous mission to uphold the sovereignty of the nation state and can look to the money paid to them for their work from the nation state as justification.<<<<<<
______________________________


Ha Ha, Yes it is a pretty stark prospect but in fact we have already been down this road before with nation states wishing to impose their will on the rest of the world but they always fail probably due to the fact that they have been trying to impose a new kind of cultural identity often compatible with their own beliefs on a world which is already replete with a galaxy of cultural beliefs which have little or no chance of being changed.

I suspect breaking the heads of people to bend them to your will is more than likely in the end only likely to stiffen their resolve to continue with their culture and find ways of eventually undermining their oppressor.

Personally I would rather support the concept of vivre a difference as we all, as people and countries have different needs for survival and I don't believe there ever will be one size fits all in any sphere of human activity. The EU could be a good example of this type of anomaly.


Regards

[mikel2]

Strangely Neither Trump, Farage,or le Penn have ever been invited to Davos where there seems to be some concern with regard to the recent political developments which don't fit well with the generally held Global vision of the future and bigger picture of the world which appears to be held there.

There are a number of stories and you will have to Google most of them through the following headlines but following our recent discussion these comments caught my eye.


>>>>“Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical, local democracy,” John Mauldin, an economic researcher and author, recently wrote. “Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”<<<<<<

Google this headline:-

“What to make of the 'Davos class' in the Trump era”

Several more on a similar theme.
“Davos elites struggle for answers as Trump era dawns”

There is certainly a strange dichotomy of world views emerging.

Interesting times

[odysseus2000]

>>>>“Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical, local democracy,” John Mauldin, an economic researcher and author, recently wrote. “Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”<<<<<<

Except for the immigrants!

Perhaps he would be more right if he said that most people love prosperity and like to go where it is and leave where it isn't.

Regards,

[youfoolishboy]

Except most immigrants love their new country for giving them a safe home and a chance to thrive. People do not move country at the drop of a hat they do so because they are desperate as conditions in their own country are so bad.

[mikel2]

<<<<Perhaps he would be more right if he said that most people love prosperity and like to go where it is and leave where it isn't.>>>>>
_____________________________________


Ah yes this is true to a point, but is this not the reason why it is so important for any nation to try and create the kind of conditions within its remit that continually breed success in order to make living there so desirable?

In whatever event people rarely forget the land of their fathers or their cultural heritage which they often bring with them wherever they go and frequently try and replant it in their new surrundings just like we do.


Regards

[odysseus2000]

Ah yes this is true to a point, but is this not the reason why it is so important for any nation to try and create the kind of conditions within its remit that continually breed success in order to make living there so desirable?

In whatever event people rarely forget the land of their fathers or their cultural heritage which they often bring with them wherever they go and frequently try and replant it in their new surrundings just like we do.

Yes, of course politicians always want success and do their best to achieve it, but my point was that money trumps heritage if the money is enough and the conditions of the heritage state poor. Sure folk will bring trappings of their previous heritage with them and one finds lots of e.g. Polish shops in the UK, but that kind of love for ones Father/Mother land only lasts a generation. After that it is watered down to very little. This is the US model where one sees folk from all over the planet, their characteristics being that they have some skill that is in demand in the US, be it advance technology or the desire to work for minimum wage. The US has become skilled in attracting good folk and providing what they aspire to while at the same time slowly making them into Americans. The UK has become to copy a lot of the US tools for this and will likely continue to move towards a US form of integrating new arrivals who can be coaxed here by money and who are needed because of their skills.

Regards,

[mikel2]

>>>>>>Yes, of course politicians always want success and do their best to achieve it, but my point was that money trumps heritage if the money is enough and the conditions of the heritage state poor.<<<<<
_________________________________________



Money will trump heritage to a certain extent providing that the money and wealth that industry creates continues to grow and is reinvested back in to the US economy but my point is that many of he jobs and much of the wealth that American industry once created has over the last 20/30 years or so been steadily exported by corporate interests to other regions of the world. The rust belts and dissatisfaction of much middle America together with a Trump victory tend help validate this point.

The overarching point is, I would suggest, that the nation state that is in this particular case the USA has been economically weakened during this period and global corporate interests have been strengthened.

The Trump doctrine looks as if he is ready to address this issue and reverse this decades long trend and bring some power back to the nation state. Of course the change wont happen tomorrow but I do believe a cross roads has been reached with quantum leap in global economic thinking in a stage of transition.They do seem to have noticed this at Davos where the word Trump may produce some collywobbles.

There will be a wealth of diverse opinion on this issue with many understandably entrenched views though few have been articulated right here. We shall have to wait and see how this takes shape but understanding the big picture is I believe important.


Regards

[odysseus2000]

mikel2
Money will trump heritage to a certain extent providing that the money and wealth that industry creates continues to grow and is reinvested back in to the US economy but my point is that many of he jobs and much of the wealth that American industry once created has over the last 20/30 years or so been steadily exported by corporate interests to other regions of the world. The rust belts and dissatisfaction of much middle America together with a Trump victory tend help validate this point.

The overarching point is, I would suggest, that the nation state that is in this particular case the USA has been economically weakened during this period and global corporate interests have been strengthened.

Here is an issue for it is hard to argue that the US is now not a lot stronger than it was 20/30 years ago and that the standard of living of the average person is now substantially higher. One of the reason for this is the flood of foreign made goods that have reduced US consumers prices and the rise of the service sector economy which has provided a comfortable life style.

Of course during this period the lot of the blue collar worker has not improved as much as the educated white collar and the divergence between the done well and not done so well as grown. This in the US has some serious consequences as the "not done well' gets much poorer medical care etc, something that doesn't happen to the same extent in the UK with the NHS.

So if Trump does tax imports hard and stops jobs vanishing does he also create serious price inflation which undermines the advantages that the blue collar see from more domestic manufacturing?

I can see this both ways and as things now stand I am beginning to feel that Trump also has to do a lot of infrastructure spending to put money into US pockets along with raising treasury rates or he could end up with inflation choking of demand for US manufactured goods and a recession. As things now appear he plans to cut the US government work force which will likely trigger a recession unless the folk let go can find private sector jobs.

Regards,

[PeterGray]

So if Trump does tax imports hard and stops jobs vanishing does he also create serious price inflation which undermines the advantages that the blue collar see from more domestic manufacturing?

The problem with protectionism is that in general the end result is bad for the overall economy. There may be some increase in domestic manufacturing, but overall the economy, and living standards are likely to fall - and as ever it's going to be those in who are already struggling who will be hit most. Plenty of work for those in the rust belt who want to move to south California and replace Mexicans picking fruit and veg, but I doubt that will prove a popular option.

If you combine that with large cuts in tax and public expenditure the effects will be even worse. Less help for those hit hardest, and no funds for the the sort of infrastructure projects that provide employment and help build the manufacturing base he claims to want.

The net effect is likely to be a slowing or shrinking of the US economy and rising debt over the next few years. Quite possibly we'll see a short term spike, as the immediate effects of tax cuts work through, but medium term the realities will hit.

Peter

[mikel2]

<<<<<So if Trump does tax imports hard and stops jobs vanishing does he also create serious price inflation which undermines the advantages that the blue collar see from more domestic manufacturing?

I can see this both ways and as things now stand I am beginning to feel that Trump also has to do a lot of infrastructure spending to put money into US pockets along with raising treasury rates or he could end up with inflation choking of demand for US manufactured goods and a recession. As things now appear he plans to cut the US government work force which will likely trigger a recession unless the folk let go can find private sector jobs.>>>>>
_____________________________________

There will be many ways that this situation could develop but as I see it the challenge for Trump will be to restore a sense of balance to the economy primarily lead by directing more of the produced wealth towards reinvestment in developing more home grown business. Clearly no easy task particularly when battling through the fog of complexity which many like to hide behind whilst at the same time filling their boots with the riches creamed from the huge growth in global tradeover the last few decades.

There will be no easy to follow format but the driving power for the transition, I believe, will come from the kind of animal spirits that have been motivated by Trump. The pathway will be long, full of potholes and probably full of opportunity for those that have the ability to see it and take advantage of it.

Good piece in heTimes today by Ed Conway which outlines some of the dilemma and for me puts a spotlight on the root of the problem which is in the US (similar to the UK) that:-

“ Real incomes have become squeezed, jobs have become less secure, pensions are diminished.
Opportunities to escape the working class are scarcer than ever. And the best explanation Davos man can come up with is: it is complicated”

“Davos man is lost in a blizzard of complexity”
“The plutocrats and politicians who thought they ruled the world have been given a shock”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comme ... -xhdwnc08c

The article is behind a pay wall but if one can get access to it it is well worth read.

Yes I suppose it is complicated even more so now Michael Moore has been wheeled out to protest against Trump.

You really couldn't make it up particularly when it is now claimed 8 people have as much wealth as half of all humanity.


Regards

[odysseus2000]

Trumps inauguration transcript is interesting:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510629447 ... n-ceremony

Echoes of Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Bill Clinton & Ross Perot.

A very simple message, we shall see what he does, but if he goes according to what he says, then:

No debt ceiling

Heavy printing of money to fund infrastructure and defence

Implying: weaker $, higher gold, boom in equities, increased defence spending from other Nato countries, more competition for European manufacturers,..

Regards

[odysseus2000]

Peter Gray
The problem with protectionism is that in general the end result is bad for the overall economy. There may be some increase in domestic manufacturing, but overall the economy, and living standards are likely to fall - and as ever it's going to be those in who are already struggling who will be hit most. Plenty of work for those in the rust belt who want to move to south California and replace Mexicans picking fruit and veg, but I doubt that will prove a popular option.

If you combine that with large cuts in tax and public expenditure the effects will be even worse. Less help for those hit hardest, and no funds for the the sort of infrastructure projects that provide employment and help build the manufacturing base he claims to want.

The net effect is likely to be a slowing or shrinking of the US economy and rising debt over the next few years. Quite possibly we'll see a short term spike, as the immediate effects of tax cuts work through, but medium term the realities will hit.

What happens in a protectionist economy is far from clear in the US which has an abundance of everything, needing to import very few raw materials including oil if it wants to frack. Should Trump succeed in creating the conditions that support US jobs over external jobs as by e.g big military & infrastructure spending the jobs will appear everywhere, very like what Roosevelt did in arming for world war 2.

The argument that lower taxes will kill spending didn't work under Reagan, so I am not sure it applies now.

Re the Debt, yes it will rise & likely no debt ceiling. This would be disastrous with out printing presses, but with them the debt is meaningless unlike what would happen to a system or person without a printing press.

Regards,

[mikel2]

>>What happens in a protectionist economy is far from clear in the US which has an abundance of everything, needing to import very few raw materials including oil if it wants to frack. <<<<
______________________________________




I think there will be a limit on just how far the US will go with the protectionist theme.

The public imagination could run riot digesting the implications of such terminology but I feel pretty sure the US will not be drawing down a veil and trading in a kind of state of purdah or isolationism which could only lead to more problems than it solves though there will be need to become more self reliant in order to recreate those exports.

On the contrary I think common sense will dictate that the US doors of trade will remain open to the rest of the world but merely be geatly tempered with an acute awareness of the implications of the dangers of the kind of unrestricted free trade that could lead to wild imbalances resulting in the slow loss of potential wealth to large sections of the economy.

I don't think there has ever truly been a pure example of a non protectionist economy that has survived, all governments I would imagine will apply some restrictions at some stage to protect their national interest making the idea of 'free trade' something of an illusionary concept; something we like to warm towards and strive for but draw the line at when it looks like being dangerous to the economy, 'cept when we don't draw the line or don't undersand when a line needs to be drawn.

Unfortunatly for many people both here and in the US our great leaders forgot or did not know where to draw the line and many may have been so intoxicated by their growing wealth for so little effort that this could have been one of the reasons for our loss of direction.

Unfortunately or fortunately if you are one of the lucky ones the binge on cheap goods from the East over the last several decades has resulted in a bowl of mixed blessings; mightily enriching not just a few because it has gone a long way to enable property prices to rise in a disproportionate way whilst at the same time helping to push those asset prices way beyond the means of many in the next generation.

In my view there will be a great need to become much more flexable in the rapidly changing and growing global economy so dealmakers may be in the accendancy.


Regards

[mikel2]

Interesting piece in TheTimes to day on Trumps Global counter revolution.

>>>>However flawed he may turn out to be, the enormous popularity of his approach, which speaks to the everyday lives and concerns of ordinary people by being rooted in what is rather than in what should be, has the potential to wipe out the left.
Donald Trump rejects utopian ideologies. His intended programme amounts to a counter-revolution against identity politics, the grievance culture and a free pass to certain groups for bad behaviour. It stands instead for upholding the national and cultural identity that the left has spent half a century attempting to dismantle. That’s why they’re screaming.<<<<<

“Opinion: Donald Trump has potential to wipe out the left”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... f6393e31bb

[odysseus2000]

Mikel2 wrote
>>>>However flawed he may turn out to be, the enormous popularity of his approach, which speaks to the everyday lives and concerns of ordinary people by being rooted in what is rather than in what should be, has the potential to wipe out the left.
Donald Trump rejects utopian ideologies. His intended programme amounts to a counter-revolution against identity politics, the grievance culture and a free pass to certain groups for bad behaviour. It stands instead for upholding the national and cultural identity that the left has spent half a century attempting to dismantle. That’s why they’re screaming.<<<<<

“Opinion: Donald Trump has potential to wipe out the left”

Ha Ha

The author hasn't done his research.

History shows the relentless swings between the two ideologies. One gets in power corrects many problems of the previous lot and then creates many problems of its own and gets so unpopular that it gets voted out and the previous lot get in... and so it goes, over and over.

Regards,

[mikel2]

I understand what you are trying to say and yes there is much truth in the everlasting political swings between the mainstream competing ideologies but the problem for conventional politics in this era is that those mainstream political ideologies both here an in the US have to differing extents been fragmented and in some cases broken perhaps irreparably.

The old lines of demarcation seem to have become blurred and our own labour party shows evidence of this dichotomy with its wish to return to a more idealogical left wing stance. Many regard this is a hopeless ask with little or no chance of ever giving them a chance for a return to power. On top of this there are new and growing idealogical demands seeking a place in the political agenda.

I agree with much of the context of what that piece is trying to say particularly the assertion of Donald Trumps rejection of Utopian ideologies, in my view they are pies in the sky or perhaps figments of the imagination which will forever remain unfulfilled.

As the piece says Donald Trump has a concern more with what is rather than what should be, it is about the here and now and that is what makes it counter revolutionary.

Just a view of course.


Regards

[bionichamster]

History shows the relentless swings between the two ideologies. One gets in power corrects many problems of the previous lot and then creates many problems of its own and gets so unpopular that it gets voted out and the previous lot get in... and so it goes, over and over.

The problem I believe is with ideology itself, any ideology. A year or two ago I attended a conference for scientists to meet government policy makers, it was dressed up as an opportunity for scientists to discuss with policy makers (both politicians and civil servants) how their work can help inform policy, however what was abundantly clear (and for most of us merely underlined what we already knew) was that actual science, i.e. factual information, and carefully researched impartial evidence are not neccessarily of that much interest to politicians or those trying to carry out their bidding. Ideology 'trumps' fact most of the time, science and experts are useful, not for deciding on policy (i.e. what is the best way to tackle this problem?) but for backing up an ideology (i.e. find me someone who agrees that what I've decided is the best way to tackle this problem!). When Gove said the public were fed up with experts he really meant that those who favour sticking to ideology are fed up with it being challenged and it was easy to demonise experts because so many bad decisions made due to ideological stance have been justified by trying to make out that the facts backed it up, as opposed to the cherry-picked, or misrepresented facts. Experts aren't wrong as often as the media would like you to think, simply because they quite often didn't say what the media said they did or if they did it didn't actually mean what the media said it did.

What most politicians and ideologues seem to continually forget, or fail to realise, is that running a country is bloody difficult, even more so in the complex modern age. There is often no 'correct' way to do something, and almost every decision, every action has potential for good, and potential for bad. No matter how good your intentions there will be a downside or an unintended consequence for someone, you aim to make any negative impact fall on as small a group as possible, a group who can withstand it or a group who can't affect your chances of re-election. Those who focus too much on ideology almost always lose the ability to juggle the good and bad effects of their decisions because they are not prepared to compromise or change direction even when it's going wrong, or they just refuse to acknowledge that it has gone wrong, until the voters show them the door at which point their ideology can often become highly malleable.

I don't really know where Trump fits into this, I'm not sure he believes in anything much other than his own self-aggrandisement, which also includes winding up his critics. I'm not sure he even has much of a grasp of complexity of the many issues he may be expected to deal with or much concentration to truly try and understand them. If that is the case then what will be critical is the people who he surrounds himself with who may feed him ready made ideological approaches to problems; my concern is that many of them are just yet more idealogues desperate to show that their great idea works, but as per usual, most of the time it won't... I'm already getting the feeling that is what is happening. At any rate we might see a few things tried that we haven't seen before (or at least for a long time) it will be 'interesting' to see how it works out.

BH

[odysseus2000]

Bionichamster wrote
…merely underlined what we already knew) was that actual science, i.e. factual information, and carefully researched impartial evidence are not neccessarily of that much interest to politicians or those trying to carry out their bidding.

As a physics PhD I can sympathise with this although my experience suggests that scientists are far too focused on some narrow subject to have much to contribute beyond their narrow expertise and this breeds an inability to see what is really going on. This is how I see things.

Scientists always feel bad dealing with politicians. The problem comes down to the concept of “carefully researched impartial evidence.” In some branches of science it is possible to do experiments that will determine which of a range of things has the most desired properties. However, in most aspects of science it is not possible to do this. However, the scientist has been created in a university environment that asserts that it is and rewards students who write such things on their exams and when the scientist graduates he/she enters the post academic world believing that it is.

Politicians who are forever interested in seeing how things will go with the voters often find that a scientist will give a heart felt statement as to what would be the best policy. However, is the scientist right or is he or she deluded? The politician doesn’t know but when he/she consults senior civil servants he/she will find that they are reluctant to believe any scientist based on their pre experience of other passionate scientists who have put forward policies that when implemented didn’t work and upset voters. Moreover, there will always be other scientists who have different ideas further causing the politician to be uncertain.

So the politician chooses some policy that fits with his/her prejudices and this upsets a lot of scientists. Scientists early in their careers might complain, but their senior folk will distance themselves because they all fear funding cuts.

The policy is implemented. If it works and voters seem to like it all is well, if it fails and voters hate it the politician changes it.

Scientists get very vexed by all of this. They hate the idea of emotion over-riding their careful logic, but they get used to their feelings and although bitter carry on as they have been trained because they believe it is the right thing. They get to believing that politicians are not that clever because they quickly change their minds and have no underlying laws to work to and this breeds a feeling of superiority in the scientist and some even get to believing that they could do a better job than the politician. Most of the ones who try find the emotion driven world outside of science far more complicated and difficult than anything they have ever dealt with and generally make a mess.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Mikel2 wrote
I understand what you are trying to say and yes there is much truth in the everlasting political swings between the mainstream competing ideologies but the problem for conventional politics in this era is that those mainstream political ideologies both here an in the US have to differing extents been fragmented and in some cases broken perhaps irreparably.

Yes, but its all about emotion.

Many people believe that a new administration will cure everything and everyone will live happily ever after. For a while their belief is supported, things are changed and they get emotional support and the opinion polls give the new politicians lots of approvals, while the folks who hate them get smaller.

But after a while folk get bored with the policies and they find things they don't like and want a change such that the folk who hate them grow and grow and in the by and by elect some other politician.

Examples. 1945 labour government, massive majority, new ideas, 5 years later kicked out. Mrs. Thatcher and Reagan, both loved by many after rocky starts, the logic and correctness of their policies on many lips and then in the by the folk who hate them begin to grow and eventually you get Blair elected. Many love Blair and he gets re-elected and re-elected and then the mood changes and folk hate him, he goes, they get Brown, they like him not much and then he gets booted and they get Cameron and then he gets booted because they hate the EEC more... and so it goes over and over.

Regards,