Donald Trump

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Trump's ghostwriter tells all. This was a really good read

 

Fascinating read: Trump portrays himself as another Horatio Alger, what a joke


Hotwater

 

People seem to desire voting for the best show of dissemblance, and well, simply the best show on TV, which of course is the media; people love dramatic appeal, which often contains comedic elements as well; people love a good show.

 

I had a feeling when Pence was selected as the VP that our future has been decided. There are a lot of Americans that think God is what made America great. They want that back really badly.

4 years of BS coming. Untold wars and devastation across minority groups. More prisoners and over all a loss to freedom.

 

I seems to me that many people who are supporting Trump are angry and the basis of this anger seems to be in large part about their economic situation, but many of these are long term right wing voters who have presumably being voting for previous right wing politicians who brought in the policies that brought about the economic situation in which those voters now find themselves.

And it’s not like nobody told them I mean even before Thomas Frank wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? people were asking why so many seemed to be voting against their own interests.

And they still don't seem to be listening

Instead of shouting ‘Make America great again’ they should be chanting ‘We fucked up and now we want to do it some more’

 

Many of these right wing voters failed to the changing economy. When technology came along, and created automation, these people cried about the loss of their job, instead of adapting, and taking on a new career. Conservatives bemoan the lack of personal responsibility, but they're amongst the biggest practitioners.

 

And he still took the money and wrote the book. Either you stand by what you do or you better go fuck off into the sunset.

And in the article he admits that he knew what he was doing, knew that he was "selling out". What a crock of shit.

 

Flag

I’d counter personal responsibility with social responsibility individuals should be responsible but so should societies (through their governments). In a changing economy a responsible government should put invest in welfare, education, training and infrastructure in those areas most affected by economic change.

But many neoliberal right wingers are against such policies because they see them as government interference in the market and the promotion of what they term ‘Big Government’ (some seem to actually believe this others seem to use it as an argument to cut government spending and to give away in tax cuts that favour wealth).

But again this wasn’t hidden and explained but some still voted in the right wing politicians

The other thing is that many of the jobs where not lost to automation but carried on in other places.

And for that I’d point to an earlier post

It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status.

But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

So what we are getting in is the dismantling of the distributive system in the developed countries while in some developing countries the conditions resemble what was happening in the west before people’s struggle to get rid of exploitation (the fire in Bangladesh that killed over a thousand factory workers comes to mind).

So what can be done well as James K Galbriath has argued –

We must confront the global inequality crisis. For this, we must, in the final analysis, raise real wages in the countries with which our workers compete, expand their markets for our goods, and reduce their pressure on our wage structure”

To me what neoliberal inspired right wingers seem to be aiming for is for a few to be able to exploit the many more easily across the globe.

I think we need to fight again for social balance but this time it has to be global. To counter the economic globalisation that has already taken place we need social globalisation to be brought in, and that means social global governance to counter the already in place economic global governance.

 

This gave me a good laugh.

 

Still a crock of shit. Even if you donate the money the damage is done.

 

This is pretty good... or bad, depending on how you look at it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=0

 

So what did I get from Trumps acceptance speech, well he highlighted a lot of problems but seemed light on solutions which seemed all over the place and often seemed contradictory.

Problems highlighted

Crime and murder

Trade deficit

National debt

Poverty

Dilapidated infrastructure

Problems outside the US

Education

Illegal Immigration

Unemployment

Proposed Solutions

For crime he seemed to suggest more policing and more prosecuting, that seemed to imply an authoritarian approach, with more arrests and imprisonments (in a country that already has the biggest prison population in the world). He also highlighted the problems with ease of access to guns but then turned around and ruled out any gun control. He also seemed to imply that he’d employ more border guards and imprison illegal immigrants.

His economic policy seemed all over the place taking in both Keynesian, and neoliberal ideas that often seemed downright contradictory.

He says he wants to redistribute the wealth and seemed to hint he was he will take it from those with wealth but then goes on to say he will cut taxes (which usually favours wealth).

Tax cuts will reduce the money government will be able to spend but he says he wants begin a Keynesian/New Deal type infrastructure spending programme which would be expensive and I suppose could be financed through government borrowing which would balloon national debt but he also says he will bring that down.

Another expensive programme he seems to be suggesting is a industrial policy aimed at boosting manufacturing, usually this is done through government incentives (tax breaks, subsidies etc). He suggests he wants to ‘bring back’ heavy industries and mining that have been undercut by foreign countries, and so it would be expensive to rebuild plants and subsidies them to make them viable.

As part of this is he mentions deregulation and the way he seems to connect that to energy production, heavy industry and mining I get the impression this will not be something liked by environmentalist or climate change scientists.

Another big drain on government expenditure is likely to be the building of a wall along the Mexican US border.

He does suggest that he can make savings by reducing ‘waste’ but doesn’t seem to highlight them and anyway I‘m not sure that what would be saved would cover in the slightest his suggested payouts.

This brings us to his main economic policy which involves trade protectionism, the cancelling of old trade deals in favour of new ones much more favourable to the US. If he simply puts on tariffs on foreign made goods that will cause other countries to do likewise to American goods and that would begin a trade war. The result would be higher prices and there would be a lag between US capacity rising for goods and services effected, while it would probably bring about a fall in sales in those US companies that do export (employment).

But information is sketchy at best.

He also seems to want to get rid of student loans and presumably have government pay for them as well as upgrading schools through the US as part of his New Dealish infrastructure plan which would mean more expense as would the introducing of a voucher scheme a he also seems to suggest.

He does want to get rid of ‘Obamacare’ but seems to suggest he would replace it with something else again information is sketchy, would it be something like the British NHS under the ‘redistribution of wealth’ (but that seems unlikely) or something worse is unclear.

In foreign policy he highlights the need to tackle ISIS but then says that the way to do it is to give support to Israel, which will not go down well with the Muslims who are also fighting ISIS. He still seems to want to antagonise the Mexican and Chinese governments and seems to suggest he might not help NATO allies. His stance doesn’t seem aimed at making many friends.

So to conclude what he seems to be proposing is big government Keynesian spending (industrial policy, infrastructure building) authoritarian regime (more police more prisons more border guards) been paid for while following neoliberal small government ideas like tax cuts, deregulation , cuts in services and national debt reduction.

I await more information but so far it doesn’t add up.

 

Classic populist. And no, being a populist does not mean a politician that is constructively solving most pressing issues of the common people. A populist merely claims to be doing that, or claim to represent the common people. In reality and in this day and age being a populist more often means claming to solve things the common people are concerned about without actually solving them, in order to get a certain position and/or power.

 

GOP is a train wreck waiting to happen.

 

The 2 party system (which keeps both the GOP and democrats doing the same old) is the locomotive, the train wagons are the american voters Train wreck seems indeed quite inevitable

 

The trumps deny that happened, and Kasich isn't talking.