- This topic has 150 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Don’t get me wrong. I fully expect Trump to be a disaster.
However, I’ve been trying to think of anything that may possibly come out of this that could be positive.
The main thing I think about is the rejection of globalization and terrible trade deals.
I HOPE that Trump is sincere about this and I HOPE that it’s not just another face and con put on more terrible deals. There seems to be a rejection, not just here–but across the world concerning these deals.
I would hope that we can get these things pointed in a better path. Obviously there will be trade. I’m not suggesting otherwise. And certainly there’s the chance that he may start a trade war with China. Yes–he could create a disaster. But HOPEFULLY, with some decent advice and maybe some luck, he finds some balance that works.
The democrats were set in what they were doing–despite Bernie’s attempts to turn Clinton. Did anyone truly ever believe her?
So that’s one area I hope something positive comes from.
The other is foreign policy–military adventurism. I would HOPE that we DO back away from being everywhere and basically setting off one fire after another in an attempt to exert our dominance over the globe. In some of these civil wars in the middle east we back our enemy against another enemy who is fighting a different enemy. It feels like a disaster.
I realize there a million different ways Trump can upset the balance and create World War III. Do I feel safe with him as the captain? Of course not. But I HOPE he plays this just right and allows us to back away from some of the mistakes we’ve been making. I’m not opposed to less of an American footprint all over the globe.
Still–do I believe the forces behind him REALLY want that? No–not really.
We will see.
Anyway—that’s pretty much what I got.
Comments? Thoughts?
Can you think of anything positive we can HOPE for in a Trump presidency?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
We have all the deterrent we need times a thousand. And we actually have more active ships now than we did under Dubya.
I don’t think that’s accurate, but I’ll follow a link you give me with empirical data. It’s been my understanding that it was the lowest since 1916, and that came from Obama’s own appointed Secretary of the Navy. There have been numerous reports that the military has been degraded, but if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bigger worry *was* the impact that future sequestration cuts would have had on not just ship numbers, but the military as a whole, if Killary Robbem was elected.
This came up in the Romney campaign, too, and several fact-checkers debunked it then. Trying to find the one that talks about the disingenuous comparison. The number of ships is immaterial. Their individual capacity, speed, tech, etc. etc. has grown ginormously. We just don’t need as many.
Mitt Romney says U.S. Navy is smallest since 1917, Air Force is smallest since 1947
More than half of all American corporations already pay zero federal taxes. Zero. That’s with the 35% that Trump wants to slash to 15%. Those corporations, even with zero taxation here, still ship jobs overseas. Why? Cuz it’s a far better deal for them to pay pennies on the dollar for labor than even a 100% tax-free deal. Hell, we could pay them to set up shop here and they’d still send jobs overseas. The difference in labor costs is that big.
Let me ask you to focus on my question posed to you. What’s the alternative? How do you incentivize Corporations to do business in the U.S.? Are you saying there’s no reason to even bother trying? And you don’t have to sell me on the evil of Corporations. I’m aware of the dangers of Corporatocracy, and I’m not even comfortable talking about courting them. But I see no other way to boost jobs in a substantial way other than to increase manufacturing.
Let’s do it this way. If you were POTUS, how would you handle this situation?
To me the solution is obvious. But neither party is willing to do it, because they’re both beholden to corporate interests.
Direct public funding for jobs. Direct creation of permanent public works. Direct hiring of every single unemployed person in America who wants a job, and at a guaranteed minimum wage.
Since we can’t trust the private sector to employ everyone, the obvious and logical thing to do is make that happen via the public sector. Private sector wants to ship jobs overseas? Okay, then fuck them. We’ll build that stuff ourselves, do it better, pay better wages, and make sure the income is allocated in as egalitarian a fashion as possible.
In the private sector, the typical corporation pays its top execs several hundred times what it pays its rank and file. We could set up public sector jobs and make that what it generally is in that sector. Roughly 4 to 1 instead, top to bottom. That way, we can also keep prices down and increase “value” overall for customers. Instead of paying execs tens of millions, we sink that money into the rank and file and product quality instead. The more you “spread the wealth,” the better the economy performs overall.
To me, that’s the logical solution under capitalism. As mentioned, I’d prefer to repeal and replace it altogether, though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
