Trump Presidency and the Consequences

[dbphoenix]

Republicans have an agenda, but you have something else in mind? Care to share what they are up too?

Not something else, necessarily, but Congressional Republicans love the nonsense that goes on in the Executive and the attention it attracts because all of that diverts attention which would otherwise be directed toward Congress.

Fortunately, much of the media is re-discovering what journalism is.

 

[dbphoenix]

Since time began, humans have been using the world's resources to grow food. We are wiping out whole areas, even now, when it is too late, to make room for more space to grow food. killing any fauna that may be living there. At the same time, while humans are moving into those areas, governments are building on those very fields, where there were farms.

This is progress, mate. World population growth. Not a very pleasant prospect, the way I paint it, I agree.

And I'm going to guess that you're doing nothing about it?

Hopelessness is not much of a guiding light.

 

[piphoe]

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/how-i-escaped-being-a-right-wing-extremist/

Take it with grain of salt but worth the read.

The right wing extremist in the US

emphasis on "god-fearing"

 

[Splitlink]

They are called developers, realtors.

They cut down a forest to put up a condo.

You seem a bit blasè about it. Actually, it is quite true. Think about the long term consequences, though, although it does not matter, really. What is going to happen, will happen.

 

[seekingTruth16]

You seem a bit blasè about it. Actually, it is quite true. Think about the long term consequences, though, although it does not matter, really. What is going to happen, will happen.

Don't worry, vertical farms are on the way. Underground farms too. Humans can be quite inventive when it's needed

 

[piphoe]

You seem a bit blasè about it. Actually, it is quite true. Think about the long term consequences, though, although it does not matter, really. What is going to happen, will happen.

I'm not blase about it anymore than the housing crises 2008 that almost brought down the world.

bring down the US, you bring down the World. This isn't nationalism speaking, just truth in this day

That's why we have regulation, man. "big govt" in your parlance.

 

[piphoe]

i'm asking, why do i waste my time on these idiots?:|

unfortunately, yet there is no cure for stupid.

BUT WE ARE WORKING ON IT

 

[Oscar Reed]

Right! Look to Thailand. You don't see anyone coming to US from there, other way around despite being most populous country.

Better lifestyle in Thailand than the US.

 

[wackypete2]

And I'm going to guess that you're doing nothing about it?

Hopelessness is not much of a guiding light.

ever the pessimist...look inward. You have a negative response for just about everyone's posts here.

Peter

 

[Atilla]

Well trying to look from an objective out of space point of view, few observations from my perspective.

1. 6 US bodies and corporations own or are worth over 50 % of all Global Wealth. Thus I repeat, the last 70 years globalisation has benefited the US and the West beyond all other nations and regions in the World.

One really needs to look at the G8 and G20.

2. Splitlink, whilst I agree about your popullation sentiment and its an issue that can not be sustained, if you ask the question who is impacted by all these demographic factors to a large degree it is the poor countries. Not the US or EU.

Popullation size seems to be an advantage to India and China right now. The countries facing issues are G8/G20 advanced industrialised countries facing more competition.

3. Migration has benefited the advance countries. Not the other way round. Look at point 1 above.

4. For the advanced industrialised nations, it is rather
- Aging popullation
- Rising tax burden
- Saturated demand that is the problem

5. For the highly popullated countries who were or have been poor in the past are the ones where there is growing demand as disposable incomes and expenditure rise. Those are the regions where deman is growing.

US and EU becoming isolationist will only damage their growth prospects as other nations retailiate.

Way forward is clear imo. As countries develop demographic factors change. People become career focused at the expense of family sizes.

Is this not clear by experience in the EU and other advanced countries?

In poor countries men who have nothing fight over women and breeding like animals because they are just another species of dumb animals who shepard their females because they have nothing else to do.

Famine, poverty and wars are rife in poor countries with small government footprints along with corruption and lack of regulation. Yet we argue as if this trend will continue. It does not. Nor are these countries a problem to us. We make it a problem by medling in them. Leaving them alone they usually, fight amongst them selves.


Once again, how can US corporations make more money than they already have if they already own large portion of global wealth? Without debt and printing of more money it simply is not possible unless they spend their money employing people.


What would happen if by some magic, we killed off all the poor people who don't have much?

Will the other half who have more be able to continue in some fantastic utopian state?

No I don't think so. The more haves will continue fleecing the less haves until the same situ is reached.


Having less people in the world didn't prevent wars.

There are now more people in the world and less people dying of wars.



I'm with the evolution of man to a better state.

 

[Splitlink]

And I'm going to guess that you're doing nothing about it?

Hopelessness is not much of a guiding light.

You guessed right. We are well past the point of no return.

What I am trying to do, here, is point out the fundamental problem--the only real problem---that the world has. No matter how good, or how bad , the world's leaders are, they will be unable to solve the inexorable growth of the human race and the desperate need to find food to sustain it..

So, Trump's ambition to make America great, again, and the UK`s decision to leave EU is, really, a waste of time. They may delay the problem for a few years, but it will come back. The next time that they have to address the problem of a shortage of anything--be it homes, jobs, whatever--the planet will have a couple of billion more mouths to feed.

 

[dbphoenix]

You guessed right. We are well past the point of no return.

What I am trying to do, here, is point out the fundamental problem--the only real problem---that the world has. No matter how good, or how bad , the world's leaders are, they will be unable to solve the inexorable growth of the human race and the desperate need to find food to sustain it..

So, Trump's ambition to make America great, again, and the UK`s decision to leave EU is, really, a waste of time. They may delay the problem for a few years, but it will come back. The next time that they have to address the problem of a shortage of anything--be it homes, jobs, whatever--the planet will have a couple of billion more mouths to feed.

That's merely a matter of perception. Circling the wagons and waiting for The Rapture may be an option, but it doesn't solve anything. Some people despair. Some look for and sometimes find solutions, such as the Israeli experiments with desalination. I'll go with the latter.

Progress is made in an ascending spiral: we move up, then we move back down, but not quite so far, and the next move up is slightly higher. The struggles for women's rights, minority rights, gay rights and so forth are all excellent examples of this. I've been around for the HUAC, desegregation, women's lib, Stonewall, numerous assassinations and lynchings, nuclear standoffs and several wars, beginning with Korea and VietNam, so I have a different perspective than the youngsters who will have only read about these things, or seen movies about them.

I don't argue with right-wing zealots because there's no point in doing so. They subscribe to a different moral code. I believe that all human beings are created equal. All human beings, not just white Christians. I believe that they all have certain inalienable rights, much the same rights that the French articulated soon after we did: liberty, equality, brotherhood. Unfortunately, the French appear to have lost their way. And we are in danger of doing so ourselves.

If we can somehow avoid the temptation to elect children to leadership positions, we may just last long enough to solve the more serious problems that face us. Otherwise, not.

President Trump: Don't ignore terror from the radical right

 

[Splitlink]

Well trying to look from an objective out of space point of view, few observations from my perspective.

1. 6 US bodies and corporations own or are worth over 50 % of all Global Wealth. Thus I repeat, the last 70 years globalisation has benefited the US and the West beyond all other nations and regions in the World.

One really needs to look at the G8 and G20.

2. Splitlink, whilst I agree about your popullation sentiment and its an issue that can not be sustained, if you ask the question who is impacted by all these demographic factors to a large degree it is the poor countries. Not the US or EU.

Popullation size seems to be an advantage to India and China right now. The countries facing issues are G8/G20 advanced industrialised countries facing more competition.

3. Migration has benefited the advance countries. Not the other way round. Look at point 1 above.

4. For the advanced industrialised nations, it is rather
- Aging popullation
- Rising tax burden
- Saturated demand that is the problem

5. For the highly popullated countries who were or have been poor in the past are the ones where there is growing demand as disposable incomes and expenditure rise. Those are the regions where deman is growing.

US and EU becoming isolationist will only damage their growth prospects as other nations retailiate.

Way forward is clear imo. As countries develop demographic factors change. People become career focused at the expense of family sizes.

Is this not clear by experience in the EU and other advanced countries?

In poor countries men who have nothing fight over women and breeding like animals because they are just another species of dumb animals who shepard their females because they have nothing else to do.

Famine, poverty and wars are rife in poor countries with small government footprints along with corruption and lack of regulation. Yet we argue as if this trend will continue. It does not. Nor are these countries a problem to us. We make it a problem by medling in them. Leaving them alone they usually, fight amongst them selves.


Once again, how can US corporations make more money than they already have if they already own large portion of global wealth? Without debt and printing of more money it simply is not possible unless they spend their money employing people.


What would happen if by some magic, we killed off all the poor people who don't have much?

Will the other half who have more be able to continue in some fantastic utopian state?

No I don't think so. The more haves will continue fleecing the less haves until the same situ is reached.


Having less people in the world didn't prevent wars.

There are now more people in the world and less people dying of wars.



I'm with the evolution of man to a better state.

Population increase contains the straw that will break the camel's back. The UK has been unable to support itself with food for as far back as I can remember. Food will, eventually, be needed for the populations that grow it, especially as the West is, now, facing increasing competition from the so-called, poor countries in the third world.

Anyway, I want to end this because as clear as this is for all to see, very few want to.

Everything is going to get much worse becase there are more people, all the time. The consequences of Trump's presidency will make no difference, in the longer term.

I'ver repeated so often. I'm sorry.

End of what was meant to be an observation!

 

[dbphoenix]

Population increase contains the straw that will break the camel's back. The UK has been unable to support itself with food for as far back as I can remember. Food will, eventually, be needed for the populations that grow it, especially as the West is, now, facing increasing competition from the so-called, poor countries in the third world.

One of the chief reasons for globalization, or, if one prefers, internationalization: free trade. Erecting barriers solves nothing.

 

[Splitlink]

One of the chief reasons for globalization, or, if one prefers, internationalization: free trade. Erecting barriers solves nothing.

Exactly! Barriers are raised by those who believe that they need protection.The last thing that an aggressive free trader needs is a barrier.. Neither will physical barriers solve the problem that I have been on about.

Mind you. Some protection for the smaller empresarios against global monopolies and people like Trump, are necessary, otherwise the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen.

But that is another tema.

 

[Pat494]

Mind you. Some protection for the smaller empresarios against global monopolies and people like Trump, are necessary, otherwise the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen.
.

I see one of the advantages of democracy is that the occasional dose of socialism will tend to correct the excesses of the rich. I certainly don't recommend socialism all the time or the state becomes like Soviet Russia and hidebound with inefficiencies.

 

[Splitlink]

I see one of the advantages of democracy is that the occasional dose of socialism will tend to correct the excesses of the rich. I certainly don't recommend socialism all the time or the state becomes like Soviet Russia and hidebound with inefficiencies.

But does socialism do that? It seems to me that it is not in power long enough to do much damage to the very wealthy and, while it is, it tends to overspend and get countries deeper into debt.

No one seems to want a centralist government, though, do they? It is, always, from one extreme to another, like a pendulum.

 

[piphoe]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/wat...a-huge-national-security-problem-874800707547

Worth the 4 mins. Kasparov is very smart, and has a unique insight into Russian politics.

 

[postman]

But does socialism do that? It seems to me that it is not in power long enough to do much damage to the very wealthy and, while it is, it tends to overspend and get countries deeper into debt.

No one seems to want a centralist government, though, do they? It is, always, from one extreme to another, like a pendulum.

Ah yes, and Capitalist countries like the USA would never let their countries get into too much debt right!

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

$20 Trillion and counting.

 

[Splitlink]

The difference is that everyone wanted dollars (which may be changing). When you have a reserve currency it makes a difference. All the US had to do is print more into the system and sell them into the bond market where they were lapped up.

Not only that, but they bought all the other damned good, foreign, companies up with money that was lent them. The US is a powerhouse. The people work hard for their money. The Brits were, always on strike.

Which goes to show that some countries can get away with murder, while others cannot.

As I said, all that may change. The UK and Spain have had their years in the sun and the post war pèriod belonged to the US. I'm not holding my breath that Trump will bring them back.Could be that China is next but who knows.