- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2016-3-14 12:55|
IN THE END, IT IS THE NATIONALISTS VERSUS THE GLOBALISTS.
While Trump's pledges sound xenophobic all around, it becomes understandable if we realize he is fighting for America's national interest, while the rest are co-opting it for a foreign or globalist interest, be it social, economic or military.
It has come to revealing his bare knuckles of rejecting NAFTA and TPP, where cheap labor can be imported ad lib to replace local American labor when packaged into products that are sold to American buyers. While this has fattened the multinational corporations, it has reduced both the number and the pay scale of the workers in America, with their losses split 70/20/10 between the importers and the Canadian/Mexican factories and their workers.
To enable the American public to keep buying, money has been printed and lent with near zero interest rates. This, is the real economy, not the one taught in Economics 101.
Sanders wants to reduce the heap to dust, and use the government to decide whom to help, how much, and when. Trump wants to keep the heap at home, and let the middle class decide what to buy, at what price, and when. One is a vision of Americans as beggars needing to be saved by Big Brother, the other, of Americans as free men earning a decent pay from their labor, not subject to the pay scales of slaves or automatons.
Needless to say, the America of Trump will be a bigger headache for China, but if China is to grow in real terms, not just in dollars that depreciate over time, a Trump presidency will force China to shut down its exports but unlike the present economic program, will rev up its manufacturing sector to produce what its people really want or need. A Trump challenge to China would force China to raise its tariffs against American products, forcing each country to rely on its own laborers more, raising the wages of its workers. Now, for the consumption and service oriented economists, isn't that the best way to increase consumption, by forcing the country to work to produce what it consumes?