Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This trend is definitely not what's in the air in Canada right now, but my sense is that it will reach us too eventually.

There's absolutely nothing pointing that way at the moment in Canada. Of course, that can change.

All we have with Trump so far is chaos. There's really nothing basic about that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

There's absolutely nothing pointing that way at the moment in Canada. Of course, that can change.

All we have with Trump so far is chaos. There's really nothing basic about that.

And pretty darn good economic numbers. Seems like the economy does not mind the chaos. Or is perhaps indifferent to it.

As much as I hate to say it, Trump may become the most extreme example of how you don't have to be of strong moral character to be a good president.

And this may make sense. After all, his candidacy wasn't about becoming your dad or your daughter's boyfriend. It was about running the country.

So far, he doesn't look like he is going to run it into the ground. Its federal administration might another story. But maybe that's precisely the point.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And pretty darn good economic numbers. Seems like the economy does not mind the chaos. Or is perhaps indifferent to it.

As economic indicators are time lagging, we have no evidence of that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

As economic indicators are time lagging, we have no evidence of that.

Well, the "lag" in response to events like Brexit or the election of a Trump or a Le Pen is usually just a matter of hours - i.e. until the markets open on the next day.

Trump won months ago, and the indicators have reacted pretty well to him (DJIA hitting record highs, US dollar performing well, etc.)

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, the "lag" in response to events like Brexit or the election of a Trump or a Le Pen is usually just a matter of hours - i.e. until the markets open on the next day.

The markets are not directly related to the economy in cases like that. It's also worth noting that major stock indices actually started their precipitous rise before the election and have been rising for quite some time.

[lio45]

I don't buy it. The "lag" for the instant reduction in TM's market cap when Trump tweeted that any U.S.-bound Corollas from the new Guanajuato plant would be subjected to tariffs was a matter of seconds, maybe minutes, tops.

If Trump was considered to be currently messing stuff up on a broader scale, the markets would be reacting to it, no doubt about that. But they have instead demonstrated they were fine with Trump's current stated direction and plans.

[jmt18325]

As I already said, the markets are not the economy. You not buying it is irrelevant.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-the-economy/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

As I already said, the markets are not the economy.

Actually, they're pretty well correlated. But you can choose to think what you want - that a less invasive government is good for the markets yet bad for the economy, if it makes you feel better.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, they're pretty well correlated. But you can choose to think what you want - that a less invasive government is good for the markets yet bad for the economy, if it makes you feel better.

Chaos is generally not good for an economy. You can't make wide prognostications about Trump's success (there hasn't been any) based on a few weeks of failed policy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Chaos is generally not good for an economy. You can't make wide prognostications about Trump's success (there hasn't been any) based on a few weeks of failed policy.

Actually, his ill-advised travel ban had a cooling effect on the markets, so I would tend to say that you can indeed see the reaction to what he plans and does, and it goes both ways.

The prospect of less regulations, lower corporate taxes, more infrastructure spending, more defense spending = positive reaction generally

Making it more complicated to attract talented workers = negative reaction

Chaos is also a negative factor, whose effect is definitely there, BTW.

But if the so-called chaos is merely at the level of irrelevant drama ("does he own a bathrobe?") while the actual policies are markedly business-friendly, then the chaos won't dwarf policy in terms of impact on the economy.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

But if the so-called chaos is merely at the level of irrelevant drama ("does he own a bathrobe?")

It's gone far beyond that:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08293516632065

I'll be surprised if Trump makes it to 2018, never mind 2020.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

but it looks to me like Trump is the beginning of back-to-basics style of governance, and the era of the western nation-state trying to be all things to all people (well, as much as possible, anyway) is likely over..

This is not a good thing, IMO. In the modern age, the decline of government can only bring about the rise of corporate power as its replacement. And as shitty as governments can be, large corporations are immeasurably worse. At least governments are accountable to all of us through the democratic process. Corporations are accountable only to their shareholders.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

If California left the US, I'm not sure that the US would give California a favourable arrangement. Germany has a favourable arrangement in the EU because Germany is the largest member state and largely wrote the EU playbook..

To be fair, Germany as leader of Europe has only really been the case since the Fall of Communism and the expansion of the EU into the former Eastern Bloc. Before that, Europe was led by a sort of three-way cohort of Britain, France, and West Germany, with a "Franco-German core" often spoken of.

The Iron Curtain cut off ties between the two halves of Europe. West Germany traded with and had ties to France, Italy, Britain, etc. while East Germany had ties to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. When Germany unified, it became the only country that contained within it links to both halves of Europe and as the EU expanded into the former Soviet satellite states Germany naturally became not only the geographic centre of the EU but also the junction of trade.

What's interesting is that as Germany prepared to reunify, France & Britain knew this was going to happen and they actually tried to stall German unity. Margaret Thatcher spent much of late 1989 and early 1990 insisting that German reunification should not happen "before 1995 at the earliest."

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Governments weren't always as big as they are today, and certainly weren't agents of social change and progress. It will take time and it likely won't go all the way, but it looks to me like Trump is the beginning of back-to-basics style of governance, and the era of the western nation-state trying to be all things to all people (well, as much as possible, anyway) is likely over.

This trend is definitely not what's in the air in Canada right now, but my sense is that it will reach us too eventually.

It is more accurate to probably say that Canada doesn't have this trend as much because Canada's model is already state's rights on steroids and we never descended into the bloated bureaucratic cesspool that is the United States Federal government.

People who casually follow politics in Canada might not understand how much of an abject failure institutions like the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, HUD, etc. etc. Or at least why these institutions receive billions and billions with not much to show for it.

Many departments in the United States federal government are designed to make a lot of people a lot of money firstly, and secondly provide a service to the American people that may or may not provide long term tangible benefits.

It is considerably more complex than is generally assumed, and again, it gets back to lio's question: how does everybody feel about our federal minister of education?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is not a good thing, IMO. In the modern age, the decline of government can only bring about the rise of corporate power as its replacement. And as shitty as governments can be, large corporations are immeasurably worse. At least governments are accountable to all of us through the democratic process. Corporations are accountable only to their shareholders.

This seems like an absurd false equivalence. No one is talking about the decline of government, and it is theoretically possible for government budgets to decrease while increasing corporate oversight and regulations.

Corporations will always be held accountable to the laws of the land, and the laws of the land will always be dictated by governments. No one is suggesting any fundamental change to this process. Back to basics governance can simplify regulations - which by the way is not logically opposed to "strengthen", in other words you can simplify & strengthen laws at the same time.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It's gone far beyond that:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08293516632065

I'll be surprised if Trump makes it to 2018, never mind 2020.

Left leaning individuals trying to argue for the impeachment of Trump over his twitter account.

The amazing thing is how people are not self aware of how stupid they look.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It is more accurate to probably say that Canada doesn't have this trend as much because Canada's model is already state's rights on steroids and we never descended into the bloated bureaucratic cesspool that is the United States Federal government.

People who casually follow politics in Canada might not understand how much of an abject failure institutions like the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, HUD, etc. etc. Or at least why these institutions receive billions and billions with not much to show for it.

Many departments in the United States federal government are designed to make a lot of people a lot of money firstly, and secondly provide a service to the American people that may or may not provide long term tangible benefits.

It is considerably more complex than is generally assumed, and again, it gets back to lio's question: how does everybody feel about our federal minister of education?

So to summarize, you believe the main issue with the US is over-centralization, and devolution of power to the states is the solution?

I hope you're right. Decentralization is an easy fix.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Left leaning individuals trying to argue for the impeachment of Trump over his twitter account.

The amazing thing is how people are not self aware of how stupid they look.

Yes, it is amazing when people don't realize that what they're saying makes them look stupid.

Everyone can take cheap shots.

Not everyone has the power to cause violence whilst attacking the first amendment.

[BretttheRiderFan]

The same right wingers who spent the last four years complaining that the stock market's success wasn't being reflected by the economy are now claiming the economy is booming based on the continued success in the markets.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, his ill-advised travel ban had a cooling effect on the markets, so I would tend to say that you can indeed see the reaction to what he plans and does, and it goes both ways.

The prospect of less regulations, lower corporate taxes, more infrastructure spending, more defense spending = positive reaction generally

Making it more complicated to attract talented workers = negative reaction

Chaos is also a negative factor, whose effect is definitely there, BTW.

But if the so-called chaos is merely at the level of irrelevant drama ("does he own a bathrobe?") while the actual policies are markedly business-friendly, then the chaos won't dwarf policy in terms of impact on the economy.

This is what I had in mind when I wrote my post about the economy not caring (much) about the chaos.