Depending where you are on the political spectrum, you’ll likely have different reasons for loving or hating Donald Trump. To the establishment of both parties he represents an end to the status quo, the gravy train, and the old methods of not just getting things done in Washington, but winning votes to stay there. To activist liberals, Trump, despite his “live and let live” attitude on many social issues, is anathema to their Utopian, politically-correct world and indeed everything they stand for. They hate him, and he hates them back. Conservatives, however, are undeniably as divided as they’ve ever been, or at least since the Goldwater days. To those who remain anti-Trump, the #NeverTrump crowd, the Republican nominee represents nothing less than a complete abandonment of their principles and the values they consider integral to the fabric of America. To them, a vote for Trump is a vote against civility, decency, and everything they hold dear. The conservatives who are with Trump, however, see something entirely different. They see an unprecedented way to accomplish conservative goals, meaning to actually “conserve” what made America great in the first place, even without an ideologically pure standard bearer. The key to this pragmatic position, and the reason it’s so effective, is the uncomfortable yet true realization that in order to actually get one’s agenda accomplished legislatively in America, one must actually win elections on a national scale. In order to do that, conservatives must abandon the “conservatism” that in effect “majors on the minors” by focusing on peripheral issues that, while they may be important morally, don’t personally affect the average American voter, and instead embrace issues that do. For their own survival, it’s time for conservatives to become populists. By making immigration his central campaign issue early on, Donald Trump did just that, speaking to something that hits home for many if not most Americans. We wonder why our betters insist on bringing in two immigrants for every job created when American wages have been stagnant for decades. We ask why it’s so imperative that masses of unassimilable and unscreened Muslims be brought to our shores from regions which we’ve helped destabilize in the first place. Why must our border with Mexico be a sieve that allows anyone and everyone to enter, while Americans who marry foreigners and try to get them a legal permanent resident card face so much red tape? The burden illegal immigration from the Third World imposes on American society is a steep one, yet one that only ordinary Americans unable to afford high fences and Gulfstream jets have to pay. We know that 25 percent of Federal prisons are filled with illegal aliens, and we know about high-profile cases like the tragic murder of Kate Steinle (often thanks to Donald Trump), but actual figures for illegal alien crime are hard to find because, as a 2015 FoxNews.com story laments, “the government agencies that crunch crime numbers are utterly unable — or unwilling — to pinpoint for the public how many illegal immigrants are arrested within U.S. borders each year.” According to the FoxNews.com story, which examined data from several unaffiliated sources to come up with the numbers the government doesn’t want to give, the nation’s approximately 11.7 million illegal immigrants are responsible for 12 percent of all murder sentences, 20 percent of all kidnapping sentences, 16 percent of all drug trafficking sentences, and 13.6 percent of ALL sentenced offenders in the U.S. Additionally, according to the Heritage Foundation, American taxpayers are on the hookto the tune of almost $20,000 for every low-skilled immigrant household, which pays roughly $10,000 in taxes while using $30,000 in government services. In fact, 57 percentof all immigrant household with children use at least one welfare program. 22 million Americans are currently looking for full-time work while at least 8 million full-time jobs are held by illegal immigrants. But but but… our elites tell us we must bring in more, and in ever increasing numbers, yet ordinary Americans wonder why … and side with Donald Trump. Indeed, if immigration alone were Trump’s main issue it would be a winning one, but it doesn’t stop there. Trump’s second major policy position, and again one that clearly pivots away from the establishment line of both parties, is trade, and again he nails it. Lecturing Carrier employees who’ve just lost their jobs to Mexico about the finer points of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage is almost akin to telling a grieving mother who just lost her child that “God works in mysterious ways.” But that’s essentially what is happening. Come hell or high water, free traders are going to stick to their dogma until it sinks us all. And what is this dogma we are asked by our leaders to believe? That, according to theCATO Institute, “free trade is its own reward,” and any efforts aimed at trying to level trade imbalances should be maligned as “mercantilist.” It all sounds good in theory, of course, if it weren’t for those stubborn facts. Sure, if the playing field between nations WERE level, countries specializing in what they do best and trading with other countries for the things they want but can’t produce as efficiently certainly benefits everyone more than they would otherwise benefit. Trade certainly CAN be a good thing. Problem is, the playing field is far from level. Aside from the United States, many other countries, particularly China, actually attempt to protect their workers at America’s expense, keeping their protective tariffs while America lowers theirs. Additionally, some countries, like ours, overload their industries with expensive and burdensome regulations while others, like China, barely regulate anything at all. It is an open secret among outsourcing companies that, while cheap labor is often cited as the reason for a move overseas or below the border, the primary reason some industries move, particularly the ones more prone to pollution, is actually to escape our costly environmental regulations. Free trade does help some, especially the top 1 percent to whom many of the Republican beltway elite are beholden. Of these, Pat Buchanan writes “[these] masters of the universe fly Gulfstream Vs to Davos and Dubai to dine with titled Europeans, Saudi princes and Chinese billionaires. These are America’s winners from free trade. The losers? Middle Americans. The average U.S. family has not seen a rise in real wages in 40 years. This is directly traceable to the loss of more than one-third of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. And that loss, that deindustrialization of America, is directly tied to the $10 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I.” ... On foreign policy, Trump again finds himself with ordinary Americans. What does protecting a Europe which refuses to pay for it, or policing the borders of Iraq, or toppling dictators only to replace them with ISIS have to do with making Americans secure? Why do we need to thumb our nose at Russia when they are fighting ISIS harder than anyone else? Our elites would have us entangled everywhere in the world, and yet Trump asks the same question we do – Why not consider putting America and Americans first? more at link http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/17/populism-replacing-conservatism-winning/
Just 2 cents: Attack on Pearl Harbor 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor Mexican peso crisis 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis A Good Look at the Thai Financial Crisis in 1997-98 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thai/html/financial97_98.html Have we learned one thing in common from the above? Butterfly effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
so you do you suppose its better for americans to allow our politicians to continue to provide us with the worst of the left and the worst of the right? have you not noticed the extraction of america these last 2 decades. Our companies our IP oversees. 24% of our prision are illegal aliens Inflation is destroying our wealth why banks are keeping interests rate low. if you manage to invest well it gets eaten by taxes. single payer turned into obamacare. 20 years ago the DMV in California was a pleasure. Not its we wait in line like we are in the worst run govt office in central american and then some. The butterfly effect has already kicked in. its time to bring some sanity to the chaos caused by our corrupt politicians.
I think when Johnson and Weld start getting their word out many will agree with the libertarian msg. Not the old Repub and dem, but the young and independent and many old hardcore conservatives in the old way meaning fiscally conservative. It's populism because the libertarion doctrine affects everybodys life positively, not just the rich like one side or the poor like the other side.
Just 2 cents: Perhaps from now on till election there should be nation-wide forums to be held in public nationally and locally, online and town/city hall meetings with telecast. Exchanging ideas on different layers of citizens and professionals. Covering several major aspects and relevant policies. While temporarily forgetting many minor issues for now. Rather than merely listening to politicians or watching medias. that offers minimum two-way dialogues!
I would welcome good solutions and good implementation. I don't care if they come from sander's people or ted cruz' or trumps or libertarians. I just sense we can't have the cronies in charge much longer as they don't seem intent on stopping until there is no wealth in the 99.5%. Instead of the wide open career paths I saw in the 80s... what do kids see today? A few fields like finance or medicine. Maybe robotics? This whole deal just seems so wrong right for our kids futures right now. I remember when the unions were a path for friends. A spoke with a carpenter union guy in San Diego days ago. He was the first union guy I met in a few years. It struck me that I never meet union guys anymore. I think we can chalk that up to our legal and illegal immigration policies. Why would they keep voting for and giving money to democrats?
Just 2 cents: 1. Perhaps sooner or later, almost every country gradually would have no jobs for their citizens, when robots can re-produce next generation of better quality robots in the future. All the world citizens have to carry out some sorts of personal adjustments for themselves individually according to this future reality. 2. National policy/strategy would be determined by economic/econometric models. A model based on leasehold lands could be quite different than another model based on freehold lands. 3. A leasehold model would be very different, and the government always owns almost all the valuable lands. The next generations would have to work for renewing the land lease cost, that would provide an ever continuing income to the already wealthy government getting even wealthier. Not only a large government can be maintained, but also possibly a powerful sovereign fund on top of potentially a fiscally strong government for supporting capital extensive investments and technological developments. 4. With a freehold model, the next generations would have no financial burden at all after inheriting property from grandparents. Then the whole national economy could become slow, hence small taxes income which is hard to maintain conventional expenses. Small government structure would be better! Local birth rate (net) can provide little improvement if too many people inherit freehold properties. Transferring freehold lands in a shrinking demand environment does not create much land demand. When land demand is diminishing or nagative, the government owned cannot generate much income from selling the owned land. Immigrants, a lot of immigrants might be the only solution, since they have to work hard to buy/rent their living places! Hence they generate/provide taxes to the government! Therefore, new constructions and infrastructures can be stimulated! 5. It seems Japan has started to introduce leasehold system. http://japanpropertycentral.com/rea...he-difference-between-freehold-and-leasehold/ " As the fixed-term leasehold system is relatively new, there have been few, if any, cases of fixed-term land leases being completed yet. Some people are uneasy about what exactly will happen when the land lease comes to an end. "
1. http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-jobs-and-economics/2015-jobs-report Perhaps tariffs should be applied mainly to imported cars, especially expensive ones. And prefabricated buildings! Instead of tariffs on all imports! Applying tariff to all imports could have negative effects! However, except expensive deluxe/ luxurious goods! 2. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...e-thats-just-a-neo-con-scare-campaign.298121/ "The great tragedy of the global economic malaise is that it is caused by a shortage of something that is essentially costless to produce: Money. " - Prof Steve Keen No economic theory is perfect, or everlasting! Only a mixed economic theory catering to current and foreseeable conditions is the best economic theory! Another 2 cents!
you can go to your second link and scroll down to see my critque of your economist's idea. In short the austrian school of econ explains the situtation.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-elec...balisation-as-we-know-it-20160626-gps0js.html Harvard University economist Dani Rodrick dubs those trade-offs the "inescapable trilemma of the world economy." What that means is that we can have any two of these three things, but never all three: democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration. In other words, you can't have people voting their own interests, in a country that always places its own interests above the shared interests of the global community, while also stitching everyone's economies together seamlessly. "If we want more globalisation," Rodrick wrote in a 2007 blog post that has only grown in relevance over the past eight years, "we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty. Pretending that we can have all three simultaneously leaves us in an unstable no-man's land." A land of Big Macs, cheap toys and more and more Brexits. " " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity The Impossible trinity (also known as the Trilemma) is a trilemma in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time: A fixed foreign exchange rate Free capital movement (absence of capital controls) An independent monetary policy It is both a hypothesis based on the uncovered interest rate parity condition, and a finding from empirical studies where governments that have tried to simultaneously pursue all three goals have failed. "