I think most politicians have NPD, that is almost a given with them. These days, both parties are ruled by NPDs. Which means they are both really dishonest.
The clue to what's really going on lies in this underlying agenda they all have, which isn't obvious to most because it's been concealed, as its the agenda of the very rich and is against the best interests of most of us.
It has multiple layers, like an onion, the face it shows to the people on each layer is different to the face it shows to those on the ones above and below it. Each layer has a cover story and a real story.
Other groups are similar. A similar scheme is occurring in other nations, notably the so called "Global South" nations which are also rules solely by their wealthy, like here.
The only countries that retain a basic level of democratic civil society are ones where the government's agenda in areas like trade attempts to keep the negotiating goals of its trade agreements and their commitments in sync with the aspirations and expectations of their people and not elsewhere. Maybe the Nordic countries ? Europe may be as bad as we are here. At times New Zealand has been a lot more independent, now, honestly I don't know. They have a
good organization there that helps inform people there of what the problems are.
So does Canada.
Experts? Have any of them actually spent significant time with him? If not they're just making shit up.
You don't have to physically spend time with someone to get a good picture of their personality, especially when it's someone who is out there front and center in public. Mental health diagnosis is not an exact science anyway, you can't do a blood test to find out if someone has narcissistic personality disorder or even something like schizophrenia, but if they exhibit enough of the symptoms it's not hard for someone who is qualified on the matter to make a diagnosis.
So you think someone can accurately diagnose a personality purely based on the time they watch them on TV? I'm pretty sure no honest objectively focused person would agree with that.
Trump isnt schizophrenic. Also, and this is hard to explain, he inherited a situation where a great many of the US's trade commitments directly contradict what the American people expected both parties to do when they won. Both parties real goals are much more similar than the oligarchs who run the country tell us, and frankly, I think they will cause another much larger economic disaster if they somehow manage to implement that agenda. But, I think that is what they want.
I think Trump's external stance in a number of areas is fake. The clue to what is really going on can be found in the WTO and in the desires on the part of oligarchs everywhere to lower wages and increase profits. The trading partners want shock therapy for the US, and the politicians want plausible deniability/maintenance of the false illusion that they work for us.
Since the trade agreements tie their hands, the Democrats cant fulfill any of the things liberal Dems promise, none of them. They can only pretend to oppose the inexorable ratchet of further deregulation, each click of which locks in due to the FTAs.
Cutbacks in education and domestic hiring must be matched by increases in subcontracting and outsourcing and hiring across borders, of high skill workers, but at low pay, that is meant to expand and become the replacement for education.
There I am not sure of Trump's intentions, but certainly don't think he should be taken at face value, either.
The general consensus about trade in services in the trade agreements, which attempt to trade services. TiSA, TTIP, GATS, GPA, TPPA, NAFTA, CAFTA and so on, is that it will be very bad for the indigenous (and legal immigrants with green cards - basically everybody who makes a 'normal' wage for their professions in those countries, because the programs undermine their work's value.) bad for the workforces of developed countries, but that gains in profits will benefit the owners of businesses in those countries so much that the overall effect will be a gain. See graphic. This graphic has been repeated again and again in the academic literature pushing these changes. One prominent advocate of this point of view is economist Jagdish Bhagwati. There are many others. Keywords "labour mobility" "movement of natural persons" "services liberalization" (or liberalisation will likely do better, use the UK spellings because the literature in US academic publishing is far more sparse than in the European.)
If you'll do this you'll find that the US's negotiating positios on a large body of issues is quite different than what most of we Americans likely want and that its also quite debatable if from a business standpoint it is even wise to push for these things because they may in many cases hurt business. They are not the kind of business most people would undertake to do.
I think we would do far better if we started fresh and looked at the entire situation differently.
It has quite a history though. And there is the problem. Its impossible to explain it in just a few words, and the various histories that exist that I have found all try to push their own views of it. None of which I think is likely to be particularly accurate.
So its a big mess. They really made a
huge mistake by making services, 80% of the typical developed country economy, tradable.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
