Trump news conference

The Big Picture Place
odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 11th, 2017, 10:00 pm

Interesting watching this after skipping through the pre-amble to reach when Trump came on:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-new ... am-w460465

If he does proceed as he set out in this it is likely in my humble opinion that we will see a huge boom in the US economy and if this looks like happening US equities don't look particularly expensive to me.

Of course rhetoric and reality may not match and there are many bear cases on can make, but this looks to me like the first serious pro US business administration in a very long time.

Interested in what other folk think.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 12th, 2017, 10:45 am

One thing that various folk including Cramer have pointed out is that Trump does not seem focused on equities, just like Obama wasn't. In both cases it is their vision for the country which they put as the defining aspects of their approach. Equity movements being a secondary effect.

In Trump's case he has several US centred approaches including keeping health care costs down via better pricing for the buyer of drugs (i.e. less for the makers) & better health insurance terms via his replacement of Obama care. This hit the entire health care sector yesterday.

Similarly if he does put tarrifs on imports it is likely to hurt anyone who sources goods abroad & help anyone who manufactures in the US. This is likely inflationary suggesting weaker $ and is one of the arguments of the gold bugs.

More US jobs should be good for the folk making stuff people like to spend on, for example autos, houses, meanwhile if the $ does weaken the prospects for manufacturing exporters also improves.

A relaxed EPA will help domestic drillers, coal, railways that carry coal & pipe line builders.

Many of these potential trends are beginning to be baked into equity prices albeit in an index by index rotational advance where currently Nasdaq stocks are doing well, while the Russell having lead has lagged a little.

Stocks that will potentially do well no matter what the reality of Trump is look interesting. Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, the FANG being potential winners, as is Apple although potentially hurt by import duties they may bring a lot of overseas stored money back, & I also, no surprise, believe Tesla can do well in this environment even if gasoline stays low the products remarkable performance, crash resistance & self driving capability are attractive to folk who may be enjoying more earnings from a better domestic economy.

Regards,

mikel2
Posts: 10
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby mikel2 » January 12th, 2017, 1:25 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:Of course rhetoric and reality may not match and there are many bear cases on can make, but this looks to me like the first serious pro US business administration in a very long time.




This may be very true as in the past it may have been thought that US business and indeed business almost anywhere on the whole just looked after itself and would, continue to grow without much government intervention.
Of course it still does grow but that growth over the last 20/30years in the US has not neccessaraly materialised as a benefit for the interests of the wider population and the well being of the US nation as a whole. Much of the wealth has been transfereed into assets all over the globe and that may not be a situation that is confined to the US.

Trump looks set to address that problem by asserting more governmental influence which of course will not be universally welcomed but I would imagine in a free market world with healthy competition nation states will have to increasingly find ways of protecting their national interests or be swallowed by powerful sovereign interests many of which may even be stateless.


Regards

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 12th, 2017, 2:34 pm

mikel2 wrote:Of course it still does grow but that growth over the last 20/30years in the US has not neccessaraly materialised as a benefit for the interests of the wider population and the well being of the US nation as a whole.

In hindsight, what we seem to be seeing is democracy functioning. In the system the US founding Father's created there would be no change as the folk who were franchised were beneficiaries of the last 20-30 years and the others had no vote.

Now we have democracy were the folk who are not in the top tier of success or are right at the bottom tier of success still have the same vote as those at the top.

The lower tiers have not liked that the top tiers have done well and Trump was smart enough to realise that he could win the presidency by appealing to the dissatisfied folk in the lower tiers. But that may not have been enough so he was also canny enough to show the upper tiers how his ideas could make America a more powerful nation boosting the opportunities for their gene pools to have a better time that they had.

In combination it was a powerful message, but made unpalatable to many by Trump's own personality and his personal behaviour which created the ugly campaign with the dissatisfied and the successful who saw opportunity under Trump just managing to overcome those who wanted anyone but Trump this latter attitude fuelled by the relentless media attacks on him. It was notable how the "get Trump' folk were active at the press conference with the BBC reporter very much in that mode.

Still of such narrow advantages have many wars been won and it will be interesting to see what Trump delivers. I am kind of thinking that we will hardly recognise the US in 4 years and that his ideas will run around the world very like those of Reagan did.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 12th, 2017, 4:07 pm

I thought the Trump press conference held some promise, but the US index are currently is big disagreement with my view, selling off hard, under cutting last several days of lows.

Could reverse, but for now the markets don't like what Trump said. I am not sure he will care as I believe the idea that the markets would be viewed by Trump as barometer of his presidency are not correct.

I currently feel that he will do what ever he wants believing that the markets will eventually realise he is doing good stuff and reflect it even if in the short term they sell off.

Regards,

mikel2
Posts: 10
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby mikel2 » January 13th, 2017, 2:37 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:In hindsight, what we seem to be seeing is democracy functioning. In the system the US founding Father's created there would be no change as the folk who were franchised were beneficiaries of the last 20-30 years and the others had no vote.

Now we have democracy were the folk who are not in the top tier of success or are right at the bottom tier of success still have the same vote as those at the top.



I think what we are seeing is the rediscovery and reassertion of values of the nation state, the notion of which was becoming overwhelmed by the growing powers of those that have the ability to disconnect a great deal of their affairs from their natural home base.
Those that have never had the kind of mobility that enables them to selectively disconnect from the state have largely been the ones that have paid the price and probably see little or no future in the ideology of globalism if it means them becoming slaves to the kind of dogma that predominantly rewards those that do not want to share their rewards of accelerating global trade.

Yes in a way democracy has shown us a way forward but its not the kind of democracy that will please many who will probably still push for a rerun so they can re design the questions until they get the kind of answers they want, a kind of EU style democracy that votes until they get the right result. :0).

Interesting times,

Regards

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 13th, 2017, 4:26 pm

mikel2 wrote:Yes in a way democracy has shown us a way forward but its not the kind of democracy that will please many who will probably still push for a rerun so they can re design the questions until they get the kind of answers they want, a kind of EU style democracy that votes until they get the right result. :0).


I suspect the folk who want a re-run are not particularly fond of democracy of any kind. The sort the founding Fathers of the US constitution, and for a long time similar things existed in the UK, was one where only wealthy male folk could vote. Everyone else had to accept what their "betters" voted for. The folk in power did not easily give this up. It took a lot of activity in the enfranchised classes to create the one person one vote regime we have now.

I believe in some way one can argue that Brexit and Trump are both examples of how democracy works when the folk who are not having the best of things decide that it is time they had a bit more of what they desire. Of course the return is that this is all well and good, but the plebeians really are not the best judge of what is good and that their decisions could cause far worse troubles than they believe they are rebelling against.

One can argue this both ways of course, but the reality is that the political system has evolved to what we have now in a long term trial, in its more basic form, of capital against labour and that evolutionary process such as this do seem to be favoured by nature.

One can easily find examples in the historical literature at various pivot points in this process of democratising of someone arguing that this is the end of the world and such, but so far such claims have not proven to be right. Indeed in hindsight many of them are now clearly vested interest bemoaning a defeat that took something from them and gave it to someone else. One can see very similar things now in the battalions of Bremain. I was listening to one scientist talk of how Brexit must not degrade the quality of British Science and when asked to elaborate he was noting how he didn't want to see Britain leave various EU science projects, particularly ones he was getting funding to be part of. Sounds all kind of noble to speak up for British Science but one could say the same about folk in steel works who bemoaned the loss of UK production and were said to be simply wanting to look after their own jobs. One can argue that Science is more important than steel, not least because it requires clever well educated folk to do science and yet we do need steel whereas most science is of no interest except to those tiny minorities of the population who study it. It all becomes a political question over who should get what and that seems best decided by who benefits the most rather than attempts by politicians to decide as was done for many years in the former Soviet Union and its many satellite states. The record of such well educated and often good intentioned folk is currently not so good when compared to the the collective decisions of a lot of common folk in the democracies.

Regards,

tjh290633
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am

Re: Trump news conference

Postby tjh290633 » January 13th, 2017, 10:48 pm

odysseus2000 wrote: I was listening to one scientist talk of how Brexit must not degrade the quality of British Science and when asked to elaborate he was noting how he didn't want to see Britain leave various EU science projects, particularly ones he was getting funding to be part of. Sounds all kind of noble to speak up for British Science but one could say the same about folk in steel works who bemoaned the loss of UK production and were said to be simply wanting to look after their own jobs.


This is one of those cases where the UK could decide to join certain international projects , which is why the question of future payments to the EU met with equivocation. The same could apply to Interpol/Europol, and other similar cooperative projects where belonging might be better than standing aloof.

TJH

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 13th, 2017, 11:33 pm

tjh290633 wrote:This is one of those cases where the UK could decide to join certain international projects , which is why the question of future payments to the EU met with equivocation. The same could apply to Interpol/Europol, and other similar cooperative projects where belonging might be better than standing aloof.


Yes, there are clear advantages to being part of some international things.

However, to argue as this guy was, that some particular project, which happened to be a source of funding for him, needs to continue to support UK science is, at least to how I see it, as much about the guys own job security, interests and status as about those of UK science. If there is a case to be made then fair enough and it would be nice to have had it set out in some general terms, but to argue that we just had to be in the projects to safe guard UK science and its position in the world seemed to me like wanting a guaranteed job. Sure many folk want that, but its not how capitalism works and seems to have been part of the reason for Brexit and Trump. A general populous feeling that modus operandi was that blue collar workers can have declining prosperity their jobs sent to other nations while sectors favoured by the politicians are suited to only increasing prosperity and guaranteed employment.

It is much more complicated than that in reality but listening to Trump's press conference it was hard for me to not feel that his rhetoric and perhaps actions are aimed at giving blue collar workers more prosperity and keeping their jobs and/or bringing their jobs back to the US. In the UK there seemed to be similar fault lines with many complaining that immigration was bringing in folk who were bringing down living standards for the blue collar classes as immigrants would work for less, but at the same time the needs for more Schools etc for the immigrants children was increasing the overheads of taxes etc that had to be paid.

As I look back at the events, which I didn't think would happen, I can recall discussions and events that should have pointed me towards believing that there was a tide of change coming. I missed it as did much of the media/pollsters and so I am re-evaluating how I looked at things to see if I can do better in the future.

Of course I could have a lot of it wrong again, but just setting things down to see if other folk have different perspective etc.

Regards,

Moderator Message:
Hope you do not mind but I have added the quote and poster to this thread as I kept trying to find the context of the quote and having to search through all the posts. Apologies for being OCD. Raptor.

tjh290633
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am

Re: Trump news conference

Postby tjh290633 » January 14th, 2017, 12:20 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:However, to argue as this guy was, that some particular project, which happened to be a source of funding for him, needs to continue to support UK science is, at least to how I see it, as much about the guys own job security, interests and status as about those of UK science. If there is a case to be made then fair enough and it would be nice to have had it set out in some general terms, but to argue that we just had to be in the projects to safe guard UK science and its position in the world seemed to me like wanting a guaranteed job. Sure many folk want that, but its not how capitalism works and seems to have been part of the reason for Brexit and Trump. A general populous feeling that modus operandi was that blue collar workers can have declining prosperity their jobs sent to other nations while sectors favoured by the politicians are suited to only increasing prosperity and guaranteed employment.


Agreed that he has a vested interest, as do all those climatologists who have grants to prove that we are heading towards climate armageddon, or whatever.

However it would be in the national interest to be part of round robin research and international cooperative projects on medical and pharamaceutical subjects, for example.

The problem is that we have been getting more out of the EU projects than we have been contributing. It's an extreme case of money going round in circles and some extra spilling out in our direction. It is more normal for every one in such a project to pay their own expenses, even if a government grant is their source of income. Gravy trains need justification.

TJH

PeterGray
Posts: 23
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am

Re: Trump news conference

Postby PeterGray » January 14th, 2017, 3:08 pm

It is more normal for every one in such a project to pay their own expenses, even if a government grant is their source of income. Gravy trains need justification.

You can always argue about the details of these sorts of arrangements. However, the fundamental point is that the sort of large scale projects that are mostly carried out under these arrangements benefit enormously from them. And we would all be worse off without them. Many would simply not happen otherwise. Of course international scientific collaboration is nothing new, and will continue in some form or another, but there is understandable concern that there is currently a system that works well at the EU level to facilitate these things. It's very far from clear how, and if, such a system would evolve/work once the UK has pulled out and then has to renegotiate a new relationship. Faced with a population suffering from austerity and having been made ludicrous promises about how much cash would be freed up by leaving the EU it might prove difficult even for a government with good understanding of the issues and good intent to justify making continuing payments to EU based bodies - and there are going to be very many such demands post Brexit.

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm

Of course international scientific collaboration is nothing new, and will continue in some form or another, but there is understandable concern that there is currently a system that works well at the EU level to facilitate these things. It's very far from clear how, and if, such a system would evolve/work once the UK has pulled out and then has to renegotiate a new relationship. Faced with a population suffering from austerity and having been made ludicrous promises about how much cash would be freed up by leaving the EU it might prove difficult even for a government with good understanding of the issues and good intent to justify making continuing payments to EU based bodies - and there are going to be very many such demands post Brexit.

The big science projects e.g. CERN, ESA are, at least as I understand it, operated as self controlling entities and as such whether the UK is part of the EU or not makes no difference to the operation. E.g. Norway is a member of both, but out of the EU. There is a membership fee which is roughly balanced by work undertaken for these projects in the member states. E.g we pay £1, they order £1 worth of widgets to be made here etc.

The issue of damage to British science is concerned with the potential reconsideration of our membership of these & many other smaller projects. The modus operandi has been, like in many other areas, that the UK cannot do everything. We have to be selective and fund specific things. With Brexit there is the possibility that we look at where we can get the best return for our science spend within the context of wishing to develop better economic relationships with emerging nations e.g. China, India, Africa, South America et al. This could in principle mean a move away from European institutions to create ties with other nations. Some in science see this damaging to UK science and want no change, others beneficial & wish to explore potential new opportunities.

The question of who gets funded & at what level is naturally complicated & political. E.g. Farming which has since the decision to join the EU been a receiver of funding via the Common Agricultural Policy and now has guarantees of continuing equivalent funding for a few years as the new U.K. Funding strategy is developed. One can also cite many other industries in similar situations and in many cases there will be changes and as such it seems unreasonable to me that one sector e.g. UK Science should expect to continue as it was.

Regarding austerity I believe that policy will be abandoned as it is now old and has not delivered much that I can see as good. There are many who will then cite the "laws of economics" to say that austerity is essential. My understanding of economics is that it is politics and there are no governing laws, just what ever the politicians want to do. Some will then cite the national debt & argue the UK must go bankrupt. This I find an interesting argument as with the electronic equivalent of a printing press we can, like any currency issuing nation, create what ever £ we need. We are a Fiat currency, not a restricted supply gold based one that we once where.

My guess is that we will copy aspects of Trumpnomics & do well, although there will be shifts in economic power and some sectors of the economy and the folk who have done well in them will find they no longer have the same prosperity whereas other areas that have done less well and who have more voters will do better.

Regards,

mikel2
Posts: 10
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby mikel2 » January 15th, 2017, 3:28 pm

>>>>>It all becomes a political question over who should get what and that seems best decided by who benefits the most rather than attempts by politicians to decide as was done for many years in the former Soviet Union and its many satellite states. The record of such well educated and often good intentioned folk is currently not so good when compared to the the collective decisions of a lot of common folk in the democracies.<<<<<<
------------------------------------------


Those words go towards making a great truism and history goes a long way to proving all to often that too much governmental intervention often results in disaster.
They also run slightly counter to part of your following comment which was:-


>>>>I believe in some way one can argue that Brexit and Trump are both examples of how democracy works when the folk who are not having the best of things decide that it is time they had a bit more of what they desire. Of course the return is that this is all well and good, but the plebeians really are not the best judge of what is good and that their decisions could cause far worse troubles than they believe they are rebelling against.<<<<<
______________________________

Whilst it is true that both the Brexit and Trump phenonema are both examples of how democracy works I am not so sure the return of this and your comment in that the plebeians really are not the best judge of what is good. I would rather subscibe to the view and go along with the wisdom of the crowd in this case rather than an elite with vested intests in shaping the way ahead since history has shown that the interests of the crowd and those plebeians masses will be well down their list of priorities.

In the case of Brexit and Trump the elite with all their helpers including, sadly much of the press were confident enough to think they had controll of the crowd when it was clear that they did not have the kind of control or influence to secure their objectives. This was probably due to a large and ever growing credibility gap which even Joe soap without the aid of a micrometer or any other kind of instrumentaton could spot.

America needs Trump because it has lost its way and Trump is one of the few people in my view that has the ability to get it back on track. In a simlar way the UK has a need for Brexit because we too were loosing our way. The significance of both events, whichever way they go will have huge implications in a fast growing world and I believe the wisdom of the crowd has come up Trumps on both counts.:0).

Interesting times,


Regards

PeterGray
Posts: 23
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am

Re: Trump news conference

Postby PeterGray » January 15th, 2017, 7:00 pm

In the case of Brexit and Trump the elite with all their helpers including, sadly much of the press were confident enough to think they had controll of the crowd when it was clear that they did not have the kind of control or influence to secure their objectives.

Certainly Joe Public is unhappy, and not surprisingly so in the States in particular, given the stagnation of living standards over decades there for the many.

However, the idea that the elite have lost control is a myth. What has happened is that different sections of the elite have persuaded Joe Public to vote for their vision. There is no way that you can characterise any of Boris, Farage or Trump as anything other than part of the "elite". All come from money. No one is more part of the establishment that Boris, and public school educated, ex city boy Farage is only marginally less so. Trump is one of the US super rich, and he was helped considerably on his way there by having a very wealthy family. Trump and Farage (Boris has never really succeeded, or perhaps even tried) may pretend to be something other than elite or establishment but it's pure myth and PR creation. And in so far as they've been successful in getting people to vote for them as not being part of the establishment I'd say that was bigger con over the voting public that the routine stuff electorates in the US and the UK have had to live with for years.

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 15th, 2017, 7:42 pm

I would rather subscibe to the view and go along with the wisdom of the crowd in this case rather than an elite with vested intests in shaping the way ahead since history has shown that the interests of the crowd and those plebeians masses will be well down their list of priorities.


This is an interesting point.

One argument for democracy is that the elite have to do sensible things or be voted out at the next election in favour of someone who offers what the electors see as a better alternative.

A counter argument is that the masses are easily led and may be voting for someone who will do very different things to what they said in their manifesto. Hitler, e.g., was elected before he seized power.

On a more mundane aspect to this I recall Lord Sugar opining about the large footballers salaries as being a direct consequence of supporters (proxy for masses) wanting immediate results and not wanting to invest in football infra structure which he argued was essential for the future of the sport.

One can also argue that many of the advances in human society have come from individuals doing something that the masses themselves loved but which they would never have conceived of on their own, e.g. Ford developing production lines for passenger cars.

One can also argue that it is individuals who have shaped politics and often as breakers of the elites conventions.

E.g. Reagan & Thatcher both set about dismantling a lot of the beliefs that big government was the best way forward, both at least with their rhetoric arguing that it wasn't and e.g. Thatcher acting on this to sell off Council houses and lots of the originally State owned businesses: gas, electric...Earlier one saw Lloyd George force through the beginnings of the welfare State against extreme elite opposition, an opposition that controlled the House of Lords & refused to pass his legislation causing him to threaten to go to the Royals and create a large number of Liberal peers. Later after the second War the Labour Party forced through the Nhs against very substantial opposition, but it was never repealed and currently Trump plans not to get rid of affordable health care but to make it more affordable and to rein in big pharmaceuticals as part of his approach, something that is not going down well with a lot of US elite who wanted the whole concept binned.

Regards,

Regards,

mikel2
Posts: 10
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby mikel2 » January 16th, 2017, 2:12 am

>>>>>One can also argue that it is individuals who have shaped politics and often as breakers of the elites conventions.

E.g. Reagan & Thatcher both set about dismantling a lot of the beliefs that big government was the best way forward, both at least with their rhetoric arguing that it wasn't and e.g. Thatcher acting on this to sell off Council houses and lots of the originally State owned businesses: gas, electric<<<<<
___________________________________


Selling off the family silver, as one great statesman put it. Thatcher had no option but to sell off the council housing as council house rents had become totally uneconomical due to induced galloping house price inflation as we increasingly became focused on banking and financial services. We were also still offshoreing much of our manufacturing and transforming our economic profile to become more of a financial service economy.
However during this period there was much talk about the demise of the nation state in the light of the increasing powers of globalisation so selling off state assets fitted in well with the mood music of the time.

Both Trump and Brexit go some way illustrate that the power of the nation state when needed, is very much alive and well and I would imagine there will always be a great need for the nation state to play the part of protecting its citizens if and when they become vunarable to outside interests.

The problem these days is that as we increasingly become focused on new technology and more and more reliant on financial instruments few people know or even understand just how,when or what forces could bring aboutt the collapse of the state.

Under the circumstances perhaps we should be playinga new version of “Fanfare to the common man” as we may be entering a new century for a new type of global democracy.


Regards

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 17th, 2017, 10:20 am

Both Trump and Brexit go some way illustrate that the power of the nation state when needed, is very much alive and well and I would imagine there will always be a great need for the nation state to play the part of protecting its citizens if and when they become vunarable to outside interests.

The problem these days is that as we increasingly become focused on new technology and more and more reliant on financial instruments few people know or even understand just how,when or what forces could bring aboutt the collapse of the state.


Historically the problem with the nation state has been its tendency to create wars.

One of the reasons cited for the original EU was to prevent such things happening between France & Germany, an arrangement that suited de Gaulle but he did not want the U.K in & Brexit suggests his instincts were right.

Another mechanism created to minimise the potential for war was the creation of international organisation such as the UN & the creation of military alliances such as NATO.

If Trump does destroy NATO as he has hinted about then the threat to the nation state becomes one endlessly known throughout history albeit made more potent with nuclear & biological munitions.

Regards,

youfoolishboy
Posts: 48
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am

Re: Trump news conference

Postby youfoolishboy » January 17th, 2017, 11:29 am

Trump does not want to destroy NATO he wants everyone to pay their way with the 2% of GDP expenditure on defense.

odysseus2000
Posts: 32
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby odysseus2000 » January 17th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Trump does not want to destroy NATO he wants everyone to pay their way with the 2% of GDP expenditure on defence.

Yes, but there is a long standing tendency for US isolation & should he not get what he wants the survival of NATO with an America looking inwards become a question if not a hidden agenda.

Regards,

mikel2
Posts: 10
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Trump news conference

Postby mikel2 » January 17th, 2017, 4:26 pm

>>>Historically the problem with the nation state has been its tendency to create wars.<<<<
____________________________________



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.

I think when it comes to wars man has created too many vested interests particularly within the the framework of a “Nation state” in order to be able to help himself from refraining from settling disputes by any other means other than war

It may be fond thought that we could prevent or minimise the potential for wars by forming exclusive clubs or maybe there are just limits to the threshold of my faith in man's ultimate abilities to prevent wars but history suggests that mankind is incapable of such lofty ambitions.

I have no idea how many conflicts there are in the world today but in 1994 its thought up to one million people were butchered in Rwanda and most of the world hardly seemed to blink.

NATO was not a lot of use to those people or indeed the tens of, perhaps more accurately hundreds of thousand and perhaps millions that have died in wars in and around Europe and the wider world since the end of War 2.

NATO seems to be an alliance in case of an attack on the west by Russia but History would suggest that the West is more likely to invade Russia, The French in 1812, The British and French in the Crimea in 1856 and Germany in 1941.

Maybe I am of little faith but yes I agree de Gaulle was probably right in his instincts with regard the UK joining the EU but then I also always felt Sir Humphreys instincts were on the right track when he proposed that the UK was encouraging a wider membership of the EU comforted by the knowledge that it would ultimately play a major part in its demise perhaps before the membership of Turkey or even the Falkland islands could be accomplished.:0).

I would think one of the few ways to help prevent wars would be to try and promote peace which is what Trump is trying to achieve with Russia but it does not look like many of his future minders are happy with that sort of approach.

Where does one go from there?

Regards


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest