Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
This is my opinion. I'm sure you'll tell me where it's full of dog dukie, but here goes.
What you have is globalism vs nationalism. Neither candidate is conservative. Both candidates advocate big government. The major difference is that Trump wants America to roll back time toward a sovereign nation with less foreign entanglements, less global supply chains, and less interdependence on other countries. Clinton wants to move forward with globalization, use the military power and financial clout of the United States to influence and police other countries, shape the policy of other countries and work with corporations with the goal of increasing their power on a global stage.
I think both polices are destined to fail, but Clinton's route is the more dangerous because it requires permanent confrontation and inevitably will lead to war.
Should Trump win, he would have to basically clean house everywhere in order to implement policy. Virtually the entire government, both Republicans and Democrats, the State Department and Pentagon, as well as the majority of the media, and the Federal Reserve are on board with globalization. The military-industrial complex and the multinational corporations have reaped enormous profits via globalization. The trend has been underway for probably 25 years and any shake-up will meet great resistance (as we have seen). The people at the top, generals, CEOs, major shareholders, etc. are going to oppose Trump's ideas and they will lobby Congress to oppose him. But even if Trump were successful in bringing about change, America doesn't have the energy self-sufficiency, the infrastructure, nor the competitive advantages we had in the 40s, 50s, and 60s - the decades where we had great growth and continual increases in living standards.
But globalization is beginning to die. The first problem is the massive amount of debt everywhere from Japan to America. The EU is increasingly unstable both financially and demographically. Wealth inequality has accelerated under globalization bringing with it great resentment and social unrest. Once growth stops, debt defaults and the system becomes stressed. One of the ways America has managed to offset the great amount of debt expansion is through the dollar which is the world reserve currency. The demand for US dollars allows the US to exchange dollars for goods. The next step is for the receiving country to recycle the dollars into US debt (treasuries) . As long as the demand for US debt is strong, interest rates remain low and the debt can be financed.
But many countries do not like the arrangement; particularly Russia and Iran, and you might include China. Many smaller countries are beginning to execute trade deals with these countries and bypassing the US dollar. The threat is that the demand for dollars will decrease, and this could eventually collapse the financial system. As such, the US military and soft power (NGOs etc.) use persuasion, clandestine operations, bribery, or war if necessary to see that everyone complies. The United States has morphed into a unique type of empire. But the system is approaching the point where it falls under its own weight.
Given the two roads which each candidate represents, neither looks promising. Something will be eventually be restructured when failure occurs. If that's the case, I'd prefer to face the task without a global war, and that's why I hope Trump prevails. He is a slime bag, and a bit of a con man, but he offers the possibility of a pull back globally at a time when that is the correct move.
What you have is globalism vs nationalism. Neither candidate is conservative. Both candidates advocate big government. The major difference is that Trump wants America to roll back time toward a sovereign nation with less foreign entanglements, less global supply chains, and less interdependence on other countries. Clinton wants to move forward with globalization, use the military power and financial clout of the United States to influence and police other countries, shape the policy of other countries and work with corporations with the goal of increasing their power on a global stage.
I think both polices are destined to fail, but Clinton's route is the more dangerous because it requires permanent confrontation and inevitably will lead to war.
Should Trump win, he would have to basically clean house everywhere in order to implement policy. Virtually the entire government, both Republicans and Democrats, the State Department and Pentagon, as well as the majority of the media, and the Federal Reserve are on board with globalization. The military-industrial complex and the multinational corporations have reaped enormous profits via globalization. The trend has been underway for probably 25 years and any shake-up will meet great resistance (as we have seen). The people at the top, generals, CEOs, major shareholders, etc. are going to oppose Trump's ideas and they will lobby Congress to oppose him. But even if Trump were successful in bringing about change, America doesn't have the energy self-sufficiency, the infrastructure, nor the competitive advantages we had in the 40s, 50s, and 60s - the decades where we had great growth and continual increases in living standards.
But globalization is beginning to die. The first problem is the massive amount of debt everywhere from Japan to America. The EU is increasingly unstable both financially and demographically. Wealth inequality has accelerated under globalization bringing with it great resentment and social unrest. Once growth stops, debt defaults and the system becomes stressed. One of the ways America has managed to offset the great amount of debt expansion is through the dollar which is the world reserve currency. The demand for US dollars allows the US to exchange dollars for goods. The next step is for the receiving country to recycle the dollars into US debt (treasuries) . As long as the demand for US debt is strong, interest rates remain low and the debt can be financed.
But many countries do not like the arrangement; particularly Russia and Iran, and you might include China. Many smaller countries are beginning to execute trade deals with these countries and bypassing the US dollar. The threat is that the demand for dollars will decrease, and this could eventually collapse the financial system. As such, the US military and soft power (NGOs etc.) use persuasion, clandestine operations, bribery, or war if necessary to see that everyone complies. The United States has morphed into a unique type of empire. But the system is approaching the point where it falls under its own weight.
Given the two roads which each candidate represents, neither looks promising. Something will be eventually be restructured when failure occurs. If that's the case, I'd prefer to face the task without a global war, and that's why I hope Trump prevails. He is a slime bag, and a bit of a con man, but he offers the possibility of a pull back globally at a time when that is the correct move.
Last edited:
