Why do you thinkd Brexit and Trump happened? Watt's Up With That? (1 Viewer)

[Rx_]

Why do you think Brexit and Trump happened?
Is it a one time thing? Is it a trend?

As a fan of observing the Brexit, the outcry across the pond indicates that the "People are Revolting", as depicted in Mel Brooks "Count D' Money"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sztf4hcGrB4

One theory is that the US Media (donning tin-foil-hats) version of the election, is why the US citizens just might had enough of a bullying, arrogance-soaked state-within-a-state pursuing an agenda of ceaseless intervention while operating a global Murder, Inc., supremely confident that no one in the elected government can touch them. Or not....

Another theory is that the media's response to loosing the US Election, the Neocon Deep State's response was to manufacture a mass-media hysteria that Russia had wrongfully deprived the Neocon's candidate (Hillary Clinton) of what was rightfully hers: the Presidency.
Even President Obama who was nice enough to warn citizens about voting for Brexit, has resorted to a wild theory that Russia is actually controlling the minds and polls of the US.
Some ask why would this even be presented as factual? Well, look at who the message is for:

National Geographic conducted a study of US High School Graduates for basic understanding of Geography. 50% could not locate New York State on a map. 69% could find China on a map. 63% could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia ON A MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST! 74% believe that English is the most common spoken language in the world.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/pdf/FINALReport2006GeogLitsurvey.pdf

Perhaps many will believe that some Russian "Dr. Evil" controls the minds and ballots of President Obama's country? That idea might be supported by fact the Obama administration’s $350,000 initiative to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election bid in 2015. Some might call this...interference (via Washington Times)?

It might not be that voters "supported Brexit", or that voters "supported Trump".
It might instead be a reflection of profound political disunity in the masses or the political elites, a division in all levels of our society. Follow the money (see chart above).

In Dec 2016, Bloomberg TV reported that the world's richest (actually wealthiest) made $237 Billion. A banner year again under the President Obama Administration. The wealthy invested in US subsided banking activities, resources (including gold), and technology. Bloomberg also reported without exception that US Billionaires supported Hillary Clinton.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...2016-ballots-world-s-richest-made-237-billion

The cause of Brexit and Trump followed by other countries in Europe isn't difficult to discern. Its the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the very few is generating levels of inequality that threaten democracy, the social order and the vitality of our local and global economy. The simple dictum-follow the money-maps the lay of the cause rather neatly.

Hopefully, many believe that then the U.S. and British military are one of the few national institutions that hasn't been corrupted by top-down politicization and worship of Wall Street and Central Banks.

In the meantime, some are surprised that the US Democratic Party, the C.I.A., Advertisement Media (disguised as News), the wealthy 1%, and Wall Street are all hugging each other in the same cozy Oligarchic embrace. Many are not surprised at all, because that is what they were voting against.
The best theory might be that Trump and perhaps even Brexit was just an alternative to the 1% entitled candidate or solution.

Disclaimer: All bad grammar in this post can in fact be blamed on Russia with out any facts to support the claim.

 

[CJ_London]

Bloomberg also reported without exception that US Billionaires supported Hillary Clinton.

I thought Trump was reported as being a billionaire?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I've seen various estimates of his actual wealth and he's not always reported as a billionaire. He's had more than one bankruptcy and has lost a ton of money on some of his casinos, golf courses, and other resort facilities. So it is hard to know his exact personal worth without a certified accountant and a true set of his accounts.

The reasons that wealthy people would have supported HRC is simple - she represented the status quo whereas DJT represented a change to the way of doing business. Among other things, DJT's victory will lead to a new round of expenses for the wealthy people who now have to buy a new set of politicians because the old ones will be out of office. (Or am I being a bit too cynical on this one?)

 

[Vassago]

I've seen various estimates of his actual wealth and he's not always reported as a billionaire. He's had more than one bankruptcy and has lost a ton of money on some of his casinos, golf courses, and other resort facilities. So it is hard to know his exact personal worth without a certified accountant and a true set of his accounts.

The reasons that wealthy people would have supported HRC is simple - she represented the status quo whereas DJT represented a change to the way of doing business. Among other things, DJT's victory will lead to a new round of expenses for the wealthy people who now have to buy a new set of politicians because the old ones will be out of office. (Or am I being a bit too cynical on this one?)

Only if you believe that he won't support his rich buddies.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Vassago, he WILL support his rich buddies - but they are different than the political machine now in power. Too many bureaucrats are entrenched. I don't claim that DJT's friends will be great - but they will represent change and will give us a chance to flush out some of the crud that haunts the halls of Washington D.C.

 

[AccessBlaster]

"Money is the mother’s milk of politics” a December 14, 1962 Time magazine story quoted from Jesse Unruh (1922-1987), then speaker of California’s state assembly.* The quotation became much-used in 1963 and is still used as a classic political truism.

Does it really matter where the money comes from? They all leave with their pockets full.

 

[youyiyang]

From a Chinese's view and WeChat's documents, this situation was caused by imbalance of wealth that makes the riches more rich and the poors more poor originated from the Globalization. So Trump was elected by his policies that make the poors rich. But obviously he is a racist.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Youyiyang - the imbalance of wealth exists everywhere. There are no "pure" communist countries where wealth is perfectly distributed. Having said that, I believe that some corporations and their executives take the profit motive a bit too far. Notice I didn't limit my statement to USA corporations. There are a lot of multi-national companies that suck up wealth, too.

But I must also disagree with your viewpoint. A LOT of people in the middle and lower incomes voted for Trump, which is contrary to your suggested reason. The most obvious interpretation isn't about wealthy people but instead is about GOVERNMENT sucking up wealth in a bureaucratic black hole that takes everything and doles out stuff to political cronies. The entrenched politicians need to be reminded for whom they REALLY are supposed to work, and there is some hope that Trump, for all of his shortcomings, will force the entrenched layers to "peel back the onion" at least a little bit.

Globalization contributes to this problem because it adds layers of confusion to the bureaucracy. Be honest, please, for this next question: Have you NEVER found yourself frustrated by the way your government works because it seems unresponsive to its citizens? Multiply that frustration by 8 years of Obama policies times 300 million people who don't like the way things were going.

 

[Vassago]

Youyiyang - the imbalance of wealth exists everywhere. There are no "pure" communist countries where wealth is perfectly distributed. Having said that, I believe that some corporations and their executives take the profit motive a bit too far. Notice I didn't limit my statement to USA corporations. There are a lot of multi-national companies that suck up wealth, too.

But I must also disagree with your viewpoint. A LOT of people in the middle and lower incomes voted for Trump, which is contrary to your suggested reason. The most obvious interpretation isn't about wealthy people but instead is about GOVERNMENT sucking up wealth in a bureaucratic black hole that takes everything and doles out stuff to political cronies. The entrenched politicians need to be reminded for whom they REALLY are supposed to work, and there is some hope that Trump, for all of his shortcomings, will force the entrenched layers to "peel back the onion" at least a little bit.

Globalization contributes to this problem because it adds layers of confusion to the bureaucracy. Be honest, please, for this next question: Have you NEVER found yourself frustrated by the way your government works because it seems unresponsive to its citizens? Multiply that frustration by 8 years of Obama policies times 300 million people who don't like the way things were going.

Then why does he keep promoting those cronies to his cabinet?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Then why does he keep promoting those cronies to his cabinet?

I thought it was because people offered him support and money in exchange for a job? Isn't that how your political system works?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[youyiyang]

Thank you @The_Doc_Man for your opinion and I agree with your most points. I know that there is no "pure" communist country in this world except in one's mind. From the 30 years development in China, I think most people including me don't think communist society could exist in this world, and people think it is more like a Utopia. The world is never fair. The words I said is not clear for my English is not good enough. And I of course don't know the real reasons in your country. My country is quite different with USA for its culture and history. And I do not want to discuss the topic about “Capitalism VS. Communism” any more for a clear minded people know they are like a coin with two faces. Yes, we, Chinese people really hate for the corruption, Bureaucratic and other numerous drawbacks in Chinese government and I often feel helpless.
President Obama's flexibility gives me deep impression and it is new for me to know his GOVERNMENT sucking up wealth in a bureaucratic black hole other than the wealthy people. Would you please talk about this more clearly?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

youyiyang -

The idea in the USA is that there are many ways of looking at our political parties. The one that I think was partly responsible for DJT's victory is looking at the way that government has to work. In order to do anything, it takes money. The more that people want done (by the government), the more money they have to take. The problem that has plagued MANY countries (not just the USA) is that everybody wants something.

Look at Greece, for example, when they had to recognize that too many people were taking and not enough people were giving to maintain an equilibrium. We are headed that way and the "Obamacare" fiasco was just another example of the government trying to do something that required them to take more money from the people. The current system allows people to take from the welfare pot without having ever contributed to it. Many people in the USA are in fact quite charitable - but there has to be a balance, and with an ever-growing welfare-oriented government, that balance is not to be found.

In a larger sense, a difference between the two major parties is their focus. It is VERY MUCH a generalization, but... Republicans are big on centralized defense but making other functions to be distributed to the member states of the USA. Democrats are big on centralizing EVERYTHING and leaving no discretionary funds for the states. This is a multi-faceted problem to be sure, but at least part of the HRC loss was a clamor to break the cycle of centralized government growth.

By the way, are you aware that the word "Utopia" actually means "a place that does not exist" ? To say that true communism would be Utopia might actually be a true statement.

You are both right and wrong that the world is never fair. Actually, it is quite fair in that it is equally UNfair to everyone at once.

Corruption, wherever you find it, shows that when someone gets power on EITHER side of the world, they have a chance - and often TAKE the chance - to abuse their power to someone else's detriment. This week I saw an article about a Mexican government official who got arrested for drug smuggling at the U.S. Border. For a long time the Daly family in Chicago was involved in corrupt government.

Here in my home of New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, about two mayors ago we had a mayor who got convicted on fraud and corruption charges. Two states away, the governor of Alabama was accused of corruption as well. Oh, we probably could both make a list of corrupt officials, a list long enough to make BOTH of us cry many tears. But here in the USA, we have a saying: When voters willingly vote for idiots and crooks, they get the government they deserve.

 

[Rx_]

Re: Then why does he keep promoting those cronies to his cabinet?
By "He" we mean all Presidents since President Jimmy Carter.
It is an American Tradition borrowed from ... well everywhere else.
Although Americans would like to stamp promoting cronies with a "Made in the USA".

In 2016, Third-party candidates took solid portions of the vote in a handful of key swing states, leaving some too close to call for hours by collectively outnumbering the votes that gave Republican Donald Trump a thin lead In two of the key states (along with other non-key states. B.T.W. those 3rd party voting activities to "alter the election" were not the "Russians".

The new McCarthyism movement to blame Russia is alive and well.
Wasn't it George Orwell that described that kind of hysteria?

 

[MarkK]

maybe a more fundamental democratization

I think it's bigger. I think the internet, and massive computational power are bringing about a new, more fundamental democratization of society. On a small scale, I don't need a Maytag repairman anymore. I can go online and figure out how to fix my own washing machine, and that principle alters my fundamental expectation of who the boss is, who the specialist is.

Real-estate agents, lawyers, police, universities, news organizations, and whole governments are losing power to the people via the internet, video cameras, and other sources of news and information. It's our Arab Spring, but moving slower because our institutions were stronger to start, but existing power is being undermined.

And this is terrifying to "law and order" thinkers, fundamentalists, institutions, and the old gatekeepers and keyholders. Corporations are scrambling to own everything they can. Police are militarizing. Governments are creating surveillance tools and permissions they think they are going to need. They are selling fear in an effort to consolidate their power. "Need us, need us to protect you." But from who? The biggest threats are those governments themselves, while they try to paint the outsider as the bad-guy.

In fact, we are wealthier, safer, healthier, and having more fun than ever before, but who promotes that message? There is no profit in that message. All large scale social messaging costs money, and what is the money saying? What sells news? What sells drugs? What sells ring-around-the-collar soap? What elects governments? Fear.

So Trump and Brexit? Fear, and fear of fear, but the harder they crack down and try to go back to some previous greatness, like MAGA, all they do is hasten the ridiculousness and undermining of the very institutions they are trying to shore up. Britain will be less for Brexit. The United States is diminished under Trump.

And we'll see what the people have to say. My 2c is, let's not buy this message of fear.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

MarkK,

Real-estate agents, lawyers, police, universities, news organizations, and whole governments are losing power to the people via the internet, video cameras, and other sources of news and information.

This is not only a political effect. It is also social and economic as well.

The Internet is making the "brick-and-mortar" company models slowly grow obsolete. Products can be delivered by truck-and-courier, by postal courier, or by frickin' drones. The latest fashions are available on-line. The brick-and-mortar companies are finding that their in-store fashion sense is closer to nonsense.

For example, if you look at articles about a venerable old-timer, Sears, they are nearing their deathbed if they can't pull a few rabbits out of the hat. Why? Because the discount retailers, Amazon, and other Internet sources are bypassing them, getting rid of the middle man. Sears is bleeding itself dry trying to compete from an old-line business model and it just ain't working!

In a sense it is to be expected. USA history tells us that with each revolution in the way things were done, there were upheavals and changes.

The telegraph forced the Pony Express to change what they did because their message business got displaced by telegrams. Stagecoaches became niche players when railroads materially altered the travel and shipping paradigms.

Telephones and motor vehicles changed the landscape yet again. The era of catalog sales and cross-country shipping made it possible for people to have faster access to what they wanted without having to travel so far themselves. In essence, the invention of the automobile (and delivery truck) allowed the mountain to come to Mohammad.

Newspapers are a shadow of their former selves. Video news has made newspapers a delayed source of information. Printed magazines are relegated to barber shops, doctor's offices, and a few die-hards (admittedly including me) who like the power of print.

With the international news availability, it becomes harder and harder for the extremely authoritarian governments to maintain their hard line. As technology crosses their borders, their citizens want their governments to change more towards human rights, whereas authoritarian governments want to prevent information flow. As I see it, they have a vested interest in keeping their people ignorant of what others are doing because it would give them too many fresh ideas. Can't have that in a dictatorship, now, can we?

We are also facing more issues in the difficulties of policing areas fraught with social unrest. Cop ambushes, outrageous religious behavior (witness the Westboro Baptist Church for a quick example), political idiocy out in plain view... people are beginning to notice and react a bit more.

While I don't want this thread to be hijacked into a DJT vs. HRC thread (because Colin started one for us), I can say with little doubt that it was the availability of all of the info on Benghazi and Whitewater and the private e-mail server that made folks see HRC as an undesirable person. Not that I am saying for even the briefest moment that DJT is a magnificent work of art. But I WILL say he's a real piece of work. I'll leave it to you to decide which kind.

I agree with you, Mark, that the message of fear is not something to which we should fall prey. However, that fear is quite real. The old-line establishment is the source of that fear. It is THEIR fear - they are afraid of losing their power and having to actually work to support their positions instead of riding on momentum.

 

[Rx_]

I totally disagree: People have learned nothing, the Internet has just dummied down people. The internet has only increased the tolerance and acceptance for bad behavior so now horrible behavior is the new "normal"


Back to the Brexit, and other movements like it, is it the internet or is it a rebellion against the banking system? Those with the power to print symbols on paper and take an ever larger part of everything against those who actually work. It is not as if anyone has an idea how to fix anything. They just know that the way things are now is not working. Kind of like an abused spouse breaking up.

Capitalism is so dead, not even its remaining parts were recycled for money.

I now stand corrected! The Guardian had an article about paying people to track down Pythons breeding uncontrollably in Florida's swamps. See some photos:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/27/florida-burmese-python-hunters#img-4
With an estimated 150,000 pythons, they evidently understood a "market advantage".

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Rx_ I hope you are doing an April Fool's response because the Internet, for better or worse, has materially altered the business and social landscape. Hell, even an old fogey like me can see it. As to "people learning nothing" - they are still people, as smart or as dumb as ever, but now they have many new ways to be one or the other.

What's that old joke about computers and automation? Now, thanks to modern computers and automation, people can make mistakes so much faster with the same amount of effort. Isn't it grand?

 

[youyiyang]

what a great thread it is! @The_Doc_Man and @MarkK, both of you wrote splendid articles! With the evolution of information technologies, the world is changing greatly. I am very proud to be an IT engineer therefore. From the Wechat (we, Chinese, use wechat to receive most information everyday) message, I know countries like Denmark, Sweden are 'real' communist society that my country wants to be 70 years ago. And I think my country is more like a super-power nowadays. The world is quite fair in that it is equally UNfair to everyone at once which is just like the world is perfect for it has imperfect.
I am also heard from Wechat that Edward Snowden once said something like that maybe a new world needs our to rebuild. What is our? we, common people around the world to build a peaceful new world, new government system. At that time, we may use bit-coins to do transactions.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, I'm not in favor of bitcoin as a medium of exchange unless it becomes possible to track them better. I feel that way because (sadly) in this modern world, terrorists still exist who wish to use violence to impose their will on others. They try to use untraceable methods to fund their operations, and bitcoin is one way that can happen. We need to take away their anonymity so that we can hold these people responsible for the harm they cause.

I'm the first guy to say that government sees too much in our daily lives when it should not, but modern terrorists are part of the reason that I am (usually) less vocal about it. I know that until we purge the violence-prone activists from our society, there is a place for surveillance methods. I truly wish it were not that way, but reality can never be discounted. (You learn this in theoretical sciences first.)

 

[youyiyang]

As i always take things for granted, so i begin to learn bitcoin now. As far as i know that bitcoin was created by a Japanese professor. People need to 'dig' the coins (solve complex math problems) . The maximum quantity of bitcoin is 21 million and this number will not increment anymore. @The_Doc_Man, is the bitcoin the currency in the USA? Or is it just a virtual commodity?