• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist - The Trump Era

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Excerpt:

His victory threatens old certainties about America and its role in the world. What will take their place?

The fact of Mr Trump’s victory and the way it came about are hammer blows both to the norms that underpin politics in the United States and also to America’s role as the world’s pre-eminent power. At home, an apparently amateurish and chaotic campaign has humiliated an industry of consultants, pundits and pollsters. If, as he has threatened, President Trump goes on to test the institutions that regulate political life, nobody can be sure how they will bear up. Abroad, he has taken aim at the belief, embraced by every post-war president, that America gains from the often thankless task of being the global hegemon. If Mr Trump now disengages from the world, who knows what will storm through the breach?

The sense that old certainties are crumbling has rocked America’s allies. The fear that globalisation has fallen flat has whipsawed markets. Although post-Brexit Britons know what that feels like, the referendum in Britain will be eclipsed by consequences of this election. Mr Trump’s victory has demolished a consensus. The question now is what takes its place.

Start with the observation that America has voted not for a change of party so much as a change of regime. Mr Trump was carried to office on a tide of popular rage. This is powered partly by the fact that ordinary Americans have not shared in their country’s prosperity.

And I maintain it is because they have not been allowed to do so. How's that? Under a Democrat PotUS?

Yes, but what we fail to understand is that the PotUS is not "King" in our tripartite system of governance (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) - and they were were intended expressly to give a "balance of power"? Whyzzat?

Because prior to the US, European monarchs maintained absolute power, even over the judiciary. And they used their influence in order to protect their monarchies. Which is why the framers of our constitution insisted upon sharing powers amongst the three branches of government.

Can't happen in a democracy? Oh yes it can!

How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...
 
Excerpt:



And I maintain it is because they have not been allowed to do so. How's that? Under a Democrat PotUS?

Yes, but what we fail to understand is that the PotUS is not "King" in our tripartite system of governance (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) - and they were were intended expressly to give a "balance of power"? Whyzzat?

Because prior to the US, European monarchs maintained absolute power, even over the judiciary. And they used their influence in order to protect their monarchies. Which is why the framers of our constitution insisted upon sharing powers amongst the three branches of government.

Can't happen in a democracy? Oh yes it can!

How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...

As you well know, Americans are doing excellently. Excepting a few small monopolistic countries or ones living from the sale of raw materials, they are the best off on earth.
That many don't feel that way has more to do with the populist sloganeering from people that want to harm the country's power base by sowing discontent and persuading the electorate to adopt destructive policies.
 
The fact of Mr Trump’s victory and the way it came about are hammer blows both to the norms that underpin politics in the United States and also to America’s role as the world’s pre-eminent power. At home, an apparently amateurish and chaotic campaign has humiliated an industry of consultants, pundits and pollsters.

Ya, this is very much an emperor has no clothes moment, which follows all the mistakes driven from the DC ELITE which eventually lead to the Great Recession and those problems are not fixed because America does not work that well, which comes after the disaster of Iraq and the entire ME actually driven again by the incompetent DC ELITE.


I am picturing people all around the world thinking "These incompetents are the same people we have taken so seriously for all these years??!!"



"Later man..."
 
Excerpt:



And I maintain it is because they have not been allowed to do so. How's that? Under a Democrat PotUS?

Yes, but what we fail to understand is that the PotUS is not "King" in our tripartite system of governance (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) - and they were were intended expressly to give a "balance of power"? Whyzzat?

Because prior to the US, European monarchs maintained absolute power, even over the judiciary. And they used their influence in order to protect their monarchies. Which is why the framers of our constitution insisted upon sharing powers amongst the three branches of government.

Can't happen in a democracy? Oh yes it can!

How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...

Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. The democrats had 18 out of 20 years from 1933 to 1953 where they had control of all 3 branches.
 
Ya, this is very much an emperor has no clothes moment, which follows all the mistakes driven from the DC ELITE which eventually lead to the Great Recession and those problems are not fixed because America does not work that well, which comes after the disaster of Iraq and the entire ME actually driven again by the incompetent DC ELITE.


I am picturing people all around the world thinking "These incompetents are the same people we have taken so seriously for all these years??!!"



"Later man..."

Whereby, it has been the US that has largely paid for the international security that has allowed them to build export industries that were possible, because the US was willing to be much more open their population to buy there, than they allowed their populations to buy in the States. It is the fear of loosing this free ride that is agitating the elites out there and, of course, the question of how the election outcome can be utilized to strengthen their domestic power base. That is why you see the fear mongering and hate speech going on in places like wide parts Europe. Foreign adversaries are always good to strengthen your standing in populist democracies and even as in the US in mature ones ( ;) ).
 
Whereby, it has been the US that has largely paid for the international security that has allowed them to build export industries that were possible, because the US was willing to be much more open their population to buy there, than they allowed their populations to buy in the States. It is the fear of loosing this free ride that is agitating the elites out there and, of course, the question of how the election outcome can be utilized to strengthen their domestic power base. That is why you see the fear mongering and hate speech going on in places like wide parts Europe. Foreign adversaries are always good to strengthen your standing in populist democracies and even as in the US in mature ones ( ;) ).

Well now that you mention it there is a bit of story here...we some of us got tired of being CHUMPS, so we went out and got ourselves a TRUMP.





NOTE: Actually Trump got us but that did not fit into the narrative that I wanted to spin so I did what I had to do to make everything work.
The ends justify the means, I mean thats what people say, that's how we act, dont deny.
This is America circa 2016, everyone does it.
Dont bitch.
 
Last edited:
NO JOB CREATION

Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. The democrats had 18 out of 20 years from 1933 to 1953 where they had control of all 3 branches.

The Democrats are not half so "mean" at acquiring power and using it. Some people, however, refuse to understand the historical undercurrents swirling around LaLaLand on the Potomac.

Like this one:
*Upon entering office, Obama was gifted by Dubya the worst recession since the 1930s.
*The unemployment rate was skyrocketing, and had reached 10%
*A Democrat PotUS (and Congress) in 2009 passed the ARRA-bill (largely on party lines) worth $870B of spending that spiked the unemployment rate at 10% - from which it began descending.
*When it became obvious in 2011 that more spending was necessary to booster the economy, the Replicants in the HofR refused to pass the bill and started peddling their "Austerity Budgeting" nonsense.
*The result as described by the Employment-to-Population Ratio was this:
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2006_2016_all_period_M10_data.gif

*That is, four long years of no job creation, until 2014 when the economy finally jumped started itself.
*If we take that same chart and project it outward, now that the economy is finally growing again, the US gets back presumably to the same value of 63.5% in 9 years - when Dubya has finally left office.
*And, of course, he will take ALL THE CREDIT FOR THE PERFORMANCE.

The Replicant Party is not fooling those economists who know the numbers. The party has: *Cemented a tax-system that is unfair and a rip-off of the rich-'n-super-rich who have sucked off the wealth of the nation by means of Reckless Ronnie's introduction of upper-income flat-rate taxation at 30%, and:
*With tax-deductions that reduce actual levels to around half that amount today (15/20%).
*Which constitutes a massive rip-off of the hard-work of the American people. After all, Income is created from profits disbursed to share-holders, and lightly taxed, becomes Wealth.
*But at its origin is the fruit of a highly industrious work-force.

My point: Corporate profits should indeed be due to stock-holders, but said stock-holders should be also those who work for a company. Not in equal but in equitable proportions.
 
Last edited:
Well now that you mention it there is a bit of story here...we some of us got tired of being CHUMPS, so we went out and got ourselves a TRUMP.





NOTE: Actually Trump got us but that did not fit into the narrative that I wanted to spin so I did what I had to do to make everything work.
The ends justify the means, I mean thats what people say, that's how we act, dont deny.
This is America circa 2016, everyone does it.
Dont bitch.

It's all in the "ump", I guess.
 
NO JOB CREATION



The Democrats are not half so "mean" at acquiring power and using it. Some people, however, refuse to understand the historical undercurrents swirling around LaLaLand on the Potomac.

Like this one:
*Upon entering office, Obama was gifted by Dubya the worst recession since the 1930s.
*The unemployment rate was skyrocketing, and had reached 10%
*A Democrat PotUS (and Congress) in 2009 passed the ARRA-bill (largely on party lines) worth $870B of spending that spiked the unemployment rate at 10% - from which it began descending.
*When it became obvious in 2011 that more spending was necessary to booster the economy, the Replicants in the HofR refused to pass the bill and started peddling their "Austerity Budgeting" nonsense.
*The result as described by the Employment-to-Population Ratio was this:
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2006_2016_all_period_M10_data.gif

*That is, four long years of no job creation, until 2014 when the economy finally jumped started itself.
*If we take that same chart and project it outward, now that the economy is finally growing again, the US gets back presumably to the same value of 63.5% in 9 years - when Dubya has finally left office.
*And, of course, he will take ALL THE CREDIT FOR THE PERFORMANCE.

The Replicant Party is not fooling those economists who know the numbers. The party has: *Cemented a tax-system that is unfair and a rip-off of the rich-'n-super-rich who have sucked off the wealth of the nation by means of Reckless Ronnie's introduction of upper-income flat-rate taxation at 30%, and:
*With tax-deductions that reduce actual levels to around half that amount today (15/20%).
*Which constitutes a massive rip-off of the hard-work of the American people. After all, Income is created from profits disbursed to share-holders, and lightly taxed, becomes Wealth.
*But at its origin is the fruit of a highly industrious work-force.

My point: Corporate profits should indeed be due to stock-holders, but said stock-holders should be also those who work for a company. Not in equal but in equitable proportions.

That is certainly the populist argument that socialists love. But by taking only a short appreciation of the developments, one misses the dynamics of the present situation and the context in which the Condition Americaine is embedded.
 
That is certainly the populist argument that socialists love. But by taking only a short appreciation of the developments, one misses the dynamics of the present situation and the context in which the Condition Americaine is embedded.

Yeah, four years may be "short" for you, a plutocrat.

But not for a family of four ...

Same time series, back to 1948:
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1948_2016_all_period_M10_data.gif


The ratio is back to its value in 1984, whereas had the Replicants allowed stimulus-spending in 2010, we could have bottomed out at 61 or 62%. But, why should they care?

Just as long as the police are keeping the "riff-raff" out of their neighborhoods ...
 
Yeah, four years may be "short" for you, a plutocrat.

But not for a family of four ...

Same time series, back to 1948:
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1948_2016_all_period_M10_data.gif


The ratio is back to its value in 1984, whereas had the Replicants allowed stimulus-spending in 2010, we could have bottomed out at 61 or 62%. But, why should they care?

Just as long as the police are keeping the "riff-raff" out of their neighborhoods ...

In fact, the world changed radically in 1989. At that point it was a new game that needed different rules. Bush the elder had initiated that. But the necessary measures got lost in "It's the economy stupid".
 
THE HISTORY OF AN ECONOMIC CALAMITY (CALLED THE GREAT RECESSION)

The US economy had been on a roll as regards the Employment-to-Population Ratio since 1990 (when Bill was PotUS). How did it all come apart?

In part, due to the willy-nilly spending of Dubya and his "wars over in the sandbox". But also the Great Recession - and how did that happen? Some Replicant nerds on Wall Street seeking a Quick Megabuck (aka "Banksters") started peddling "Investment Instruments" to the world that were JUNK. They had no viable underpinning since their mortgages had been falsified (as regards revenues) and subsequently failed/defaulted starting in 2007/8 (when the "fit-hit-the-shan").

Those falsified mortgages occurred because mortgagors lied about their income, hoping during a real-estate boom to "flip-a-condo" in two- or three-months. Thus Making A Proverbial Killing. That realty boom became a bust as a great quantity of dud-mortgages were cancelled.

Meaning their repackaging into "Investment Instruments" sold to the general public and investors (as realty-based income-generating mortgages) were also non-functional. Those instruments had been sold throughout the US and even the World.

Which is how Wall Street kick-started the SubPrime Debacle that also gave birth to the Toxic Waste Mess; and which caused the Great Recession when it appeared that a very large part of financial investments banks would default sinking the banks that held them (who would in turn fail as well).

And all of this Major Economic Catastrophe because Congress and the PotUS (Billy-boy) had allowed commercial banks to merge with investment banks.

From 1932, when the Glass-Steagal Act had been passed separating the two because they were responsible for the 1929 stock-market failure, the US had refused that both commercial and investment banks merge. And, for good reason!

But, no, in a willful desire to enhance "profits" the banks convinced first the Secretary of Finance (Robert Rubin) who convinced Clinton's Finance Advisor (Lawrence Summers), and both convinced Clinton to sign the bill allowing the merging of commercial and investment banking.

Which inevitably tipped the economy into the Great Recession, and the calamity we have been living in the US since 2008.

So, the next time you see either Rubin or Summers mouthing on TV about "banking", be careful ...

PS: Bill Clinton himself acknowledged publicly that it was his signing of the demise of the Glass-Steagal Act that created the eventual Toxic Waste Mess. He never should have torn down that wall between the two entities. And why we don't put it back up is anybody's guess!
 
Last edited:
Excerpt:



And I maintain it is because they have not been allowed to do so. How's that? Under a Democrat PotUS?

Yes, but what we fail to understand is that the PotUS is not "King" in our tripartite system of governance (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) - and they were were intended expressly to give a "balance of power"? Whyzzat?

Because prior to the US, European monarchs maintained absolute power, even over the judiciary. And they used their influence in order to protect their monarchies. Which is why the framers of our constitution insisted upon sharing powers amongst the three branches of government.

Can't happen in a democracy? Oh yes it can!

How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...
This is the same rag that wrote that a Trump presidency would be more dangerous to the world than Open Warfare in the South China Sea.
 
This is the same rag that wrote that a Trump presidency would be more dangerous to the world than Open Warfare in the South China Sea.

"Rag" to some, poignant reporting to others.

Which makes for debates - if one was employing some sense rather than sarcasm ...
 
As you well know, Americans are doing excellently.

Nobody in his right mind would think that 42 million Americans living below the Poverty Threshold was "excellently".

Where ignorance prevails ...
 
How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...

It is time this blessed country got rid of a couple of deeply antiquated election-attributes:
*The cockamamie notion that we need an Electoral College to "report the vote to Congress from each state". We no longer live in the 18th century when horse-riding electoral voters made their way physically to DC. We now have an excellent means of reporting the popular vote (once all polling stations are closed) - it is called a "PDF" sent via the Internet to a Congressional Office by the sole authority of the state in which the vote was taken. That vote is then published both on the Internet and (to avoid overload) on selected TV stations in each state.
*The existence of voting boundary-manipulation (called gerrymandering) that has existed also from the first half of the 19th century. The purpose of which is to concentrate votes by means of pre-established "districting" to assure the election of one party. It is unfair and should be made illegal since no law-of-the-land stipulates a two-party system, which gerrymandering guarantees.
*Place a cap on election funding to the amount of $2000 per registered voter.
*It would also be appropriate that a "registered voter" be substantiated by a National Identity Card (NIC) issued by the US government. Meaning one would have to "register in a state to vote" and present a NIC to be allowed to vote under that name.
*The NIC would be established at birth (and registered in a national data-bank), and obtained by that person when claimed upon their "date-of-adulthood". Aside from the indication of date-of-birth and parents, the individual's identity will be linked to a DNA-sample as a means of authentication.

At present, the US employs the passport as an date-of-birth authentication. Only 46% of Americans have passports. The NIC could assist police in identifying those perpetrating some crimes.
 
Last edited:
Nobody in his right mind would think that 42 million Americans living below the Poverty Threshold was "excellently".

Where ignorance prevails ...

That would depend on whether one wanted to incite discontent and relative to whom you compare them.

It is true that median income has fallen in the US since it hit its high at the peak of the Clinton Bubble in 1999.

We are talking about a population of over 300 millions and a huge landmass. Is there any comparable country/population with a mean income even approaching that of the US? Also, how do you determine or even compare "poverty"? There are many ways to do that. The word might make sense in a discussion between statisticians. Using it in popular debate is incitement pure and clear.

Take the EU. Over large stretches of that mostly organized as Social Democracies Union an income of $12.082 (poverty level of one person household) would look fine for the median salaried employee and $24.000 (US poverty line for 4 persons household) would be nice to have. Take Portugal with an average after tax salary of $13.500 (before tax $18.000). This is not in the rich countries, of course. But even in countries like Germany you would find that the average net salary is $9.000 and for the EU as a whole $19.000 a year lower than in the US, where average after tax salaries are at $39.200.

So, if you want to present a consistent argument, I will gladly read it and comment. I might learn something and would be happy to. But I find it aggravating to read your incendiary populism.
 
In fact, the world changed radically in 1989. At that point it was a new game that needed different rules. Bush the elder had initiated that. But the necessary measures got lost in "It's the economy stupid".

Show me how. Show me the numbers.

Words, words, words, useless words ...
 
Also, how do you determine or even compare "poverty"?

Damn easy. You need an education of what is called the Poverty Threshold.

Try here:
The Census Bureau provides poverty data from several household surveys and programs. Here you can find poverty estimates, learn about these surveys and programs, and get guidance on how to choose the right estimate for your needs.

But I find it aggravating to read your incendiary populism.

Incendiary Populism! Wow, in a written dialog! I wish I could patent that and resell it! Then I'd become a Rich Amurikun Plutokrat!

And I find aggravating your hapless banalities without real factual information.

We're even - so let's just move on. From time-to-time, you do post something interesting ...
 
Last edited:
Show me how. Show me the numbers.

Words, words, words, useless words ...

You don't know that the world changed radically in 1989? Well, then. You wouldn't have thought through the implications and followed the developments with your shrewd economist's eye.
 
Damn easy. You need an education of what is called the Poverty Threshold.

Try here:




Incendiary Populism! Wow, in a written dialog! I wish I could patent that and resell it! Then I'd become a Rich Amurikun Plutokrat!

And I find aggravating your hapless banalities without real factual information.

We're even - so let's just move on. From time-to-time, you do post something interesting ...

Oh, thank you very much indeed, Sir. Fine Googleing there, I'm sure. Of course, I knew most of the links, but that's okay. It's the thought that counts.

Anyway, It would be more interesting to hear your response to the bits you cut away. ;)
 
You don't know that the world changed radically in 1989? Well, then. You wouldn't have thought through the implications and followed the developments with your shrewd economist's eye.

Which means you haven't an explanation for that reasoning. Either ...
 
Excerpt:



And I maintain it is because they have not been allowed to do so. How's that? Under a Democrat PotUS?

Yes, but what we fail to understand is that the PotUS is not "King" in our tripartite system of governance (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) - and they were were intended expressly to give a "balance of power"? Whyzzat?

Because prior to the US, European monarchs maintained absolute power, even over the judiciary. And they used their influence in order to protect their monarchies. Which is why the framers of our constitution insisted upon sharing powers amongst the three branches of government.

Can't happen in a democracy? Oh yes it can!

How? When all three powers reside in just one national party, that party most definitely can appropriate all three powers to force into law their own political venues. As we shall see ...

Whats this " We " crap ? YOU LIVE IN FRANCE .
 
Whats this " We " crap ? YOU LIVE IN FRANCE .

What this "YOU crap", you live in the US.

This is debate-forum, in case you haven't notice. Show me the rules that state only Americans living in the US can debate political matters pertaining to the US.

Wakey, wakey ...
 
What this "YOU crap", you live in the US.

This is debate-forum, in case you haven't notice. Show me the rules that state only Americans living in the US can debate political matters pertaining to the US.

Wakey, wakey ...

You continue to post on American Politics and the America economy as if you were a actual participant in the process. YOU LIVE IN FRANCE, and if you haven't noticed the Progressive agenda along with the Obama legacy was absolutely rebuked on the 9th. You should get over it and stop pretending you are a part of the American process in ANY WAY, you're not
 
Back
Top Bottom