It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
All great choices (especially Macca, The Stones & The Who), including Pelican 212 who have proved themselves tonight. Sam Moore kicked butt too.
I'm afraid work commitments, film and Bond interests must take precedence over politics, and so I won't be able to provide the daily news updates. For that, I apologize. I haven't really been doing it since the New Year anyway, but started again a few weeks back as Inauguration got closer, as some seemed to enjoy my posts. Some may be under the illusion that I am a Trump fanatic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have concerns like other reasonable people, but I refuse to become a fear monger or doomsayer.
Mr. Trump is now the President of the United States, and the leader of the free world. I wish him well in his efforts. He's an unconventional pick with unconventional views on many things. I understand what he's trying to achieve and hope he can have some success. Much of his comments on world affairs reflects the current state of play and trends that are already well underway and have been for many years (such as a New World Order, Chinese strength, European disarray, Russian belligerence needing to be controlled etc. etc.). He is not responsible for these changes. He is trying to help America navigate them. I have always believed instinctively that the mild mannered Mr. Obama was elected to manage America's relative decline in the world, which has been underway for quite some time. 8 years later, I believe I was correct in my initial assessment. That decline, as said, is inevitable to some extent. This is to some degree a zero sum game (although it's true that the pie is increasing, it's also shared by more countries and more people, so America's relative share of the pot will inevitably be smaller as time progresses).
President Trump and his team are trying to find a way to balance that decline and also increase the share of the pie going to the many vs. the few. That inequality remains the biggest risk to the survival of the USA as it currently stands.
It was recently reported at Davos that the 8 richest people in the world have as much wealth as half of the world's population.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/worlds-eight-richest-as-wealthy-as-half-humanity-oxfam-tells-davos-2017-1
Let that sink in for a bit.
The status quo is certainly not tenable. Those who are happy with the way things were are living in delusion. A revolution is coming either way. To quote Selina Kyle from 2012's brilliant TDKR:
"There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us. "
The question will be how is that storm managed? Will it be an organized one or will it be chaotic (as in the film)? As I said on a previous thread that was closed down, President Trump, while he may have co-opted the populist banner, is essentially one of the elites. He has an opportunity (as one of the richest men in the world, who knows most of the insiders) to harness that anger and frustration and diffuse it. He is uniquely placed as he has a finger on either side of the fence. The elites fear him and a large portion of the downtrodden adore him as their saviour. He will have to navigate this power position opportunity which he has been given very carefully.
Whether the President likes it or not, he is now, as of Friday, one of the Washington Insiders. He and the others now have an opportunity to let some air out of the balloon before it bursts. They'd better succeed, and quickly, or else, to quote Al Jolson: "you ain't seen nothing yet!". The public will turn on him as quickly as they've turned on others if practical solutions to the needs of the working class are not addressed and alleviated, and quickly. That is when we will see the real revolution, and that will really be quite frightening.
Solutions to deal with the impacts of technology and globalization are urgently needed. So are solutions to address the impacts of population growth in an environment of declining resources.
I hope the new President can succeed. I think it's foolish to want him to fail. The stakes are too high. For America & for the world.
I am always available to discuss substantive issues on economics and foreign policy, which are policy areas of interest to me & which I follow closely. I will always engage those who want to have an honest discussion away from ideology and diatribe.
I will continue to post here as information comes up which interests me, including on upcoming European elections.
Here is an interesting article on the difficulties of managing and organizing a Cabinet which I came across, for those interested.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/trump-is-setting-up-government-in-a-way-that-promises-chaos-commentary.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quoted-bane-in-inauguration-speech-2017-1
That's interesting @Creasy47. I believe he has to succeed, otherwise Bane is indeed an upcoming reality. It's what happens if he fails that should scare people. Outside of ideology, the forces that swept Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump into power are similar. Those who are lacking hope are crying out for it. They invested in soaring rhetoric before. They are investing in a battering ram now. Either way, their patience is wearing thin.
And yes, we all have access to the news media, such as it is. Yes, I have faith that the new admin will make effort to foster robust economic activity and opportunity, focus effort on a more decentralized, more democratic approach to governance, delegate maximum power to the states, protect US sovereignty.
That's all we can ask.
President has scheduled meetings with PM's of both GB and Canada today and with President of Mexico.
Mexico has handed over the evil El Chapo to face American justice, as a show of good faith it seems.
Looks like NAFTA is going to get a good workover. PM better dig in and bring his A game.
Meantime I've got a full 7 hours of American football to watch today.
Suck it Meryl Streep!
I thought the Packers would have more going on.
It's all Falcons at the half. Is the Super Bowl coming back to Georgia?
Patriots Steelers game should be a good one. Trumper's boys, Brady, Belichick and Bob Kraft should win this one, but unlike certain election pundits, I can't call a winner with certainty.
The Super Bowl - what a great American event! And such an economic boom. The many micro and medium economies, that spin off benefits from this spectacle, and its buildup is impressive.
I know my workplace, and those doing business with us, all get a little fatter.
Good work @bondjames. I learned plenty from your studied observations.
I do promise going forward a round-up of that great galactic event that our planet is honored to host each year. Just 8 more days till Pia passes the crown.
Meantime, millions of Americans, and others the world over are riveted
Its championship Sunday. I'd excuse Trump if he wants to take the day off, or the night at least, and watch the powerhouse Patriots.
Atlanta Falcons = a force!
Yes, I read about that. Canada seems to be taking the right approach to things. Trudeau is no fool, although his misguided ideology is costing taxpayers already. Peña Nieto is no fool either, as it is he who gave President Trump a big boost in August with that face-to-face meeting, one of the greatest hedge bets of the recent past. British PM Theresa May will meet with President Trump on Friday as well, so lots going on.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/22/trump-mexico-news-president-plans-to-meet-with-uks-may-mexicos-pena-nieto-white-house.html
@Gustav_Graves, I'm always around to discuss policy matters, although I enjoy economics (by training) and foreign policy (my interest) the most. It's just that the daily posts are a bit time consuming, and work is intruding. I'm also in the middle of a classic film marathon that takes a bit of leisure time.
I'm sure you'll be interested to learn that Marine LePen was seen at the Starbucks at Trump Tower last week (apparently she did not meet with the President or his team).
At a meeting of Far Right parties in Europe yesterday she extolled the President's inauguration speech, calling patriotism the 'policy of the future'.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38705176
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-national-front-geert-wilders-afd-alternative-germany-koblenz-summit-conference-far-a7539371.html
I also found his speach totally respectless towards the prior President Barack Obama as well as all those who ciritcise him. He should keep in mind that more than half of the voters have not voted for him but that he is now the preident of all Americans, including those who oppose his politics. It is also his task to keep the society together and stop the polarisation. I have also never understood why America should be such a poor victim. It is one of the richest and certainly the most influential coutries in the world. It has many allies and has been responsible for the establishment of a relatively peacefull world order after WWII. There are also some leading industries - such as the software, entertainment and film industries - that are globally successfull. Never before has an American President made its country so small. And when Trmp now says "Make America great again", I wonder which period in time he has in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
I agree that he should have said a few more words about his predecessors who were in attendance. This man is certainly no orator. I don't think more than half of the voters oppose his policies. Many who didn't vote for him were scare mongered out of it by a disgraceful Clinton campaign which demonized him. I can see that in the way they denigrate him even now, before he does anything in office. Fear is the enemy of hope. It's a normal human emotion, but not a rational one. Wait until the 100 day agenda is enacted, and then let's talk.
Regarding your points on the US being one of the richest countries: I think you perhaps have a misguided view of what some sections of society are feeling in the US. This is not Germany, which I'd argue is in fact one of the richest countries, in terms of balanced growth that benefits its entire society. There are several people under the poverty line who have no hope. No opportunity. Moreover, psychologists have shown us that it is 'relative change' in status vis-a-vis our neighbours and others that shapes our satisfaction or dissatisfaction. That is in fact more important than 'absolute' status. As I said earlier, the US is in 'relative' decline. That much should be clear to everyone with common sense. It is in relative decline overall (compared to other nations) and also within (where wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few). That is the cause of the discontent which brought President Trump into office.
It is my contention that he is referring to the 1980's. That is the decade that shaped him more than any other. One can debate whether the 'greed is good' decade is the right one to emulate, but there is no doubt that there was more optimism in the country then than there is now, from what I have read and heard.
Well, I'm not surprised a bit. The Trump administration is a fierce alt-right, neo-nationalist, protectionist, isolationist government. And it certainly has nothing to do with @BondJames / Reagan's 1980's vision that includes free trade and an already "shiny house upon the hill". Trump is dark, dystopian, narcissist, mildly autoritarian and from now on a fierce hater of journalism (even the Carl Bernstein-like journalism).
But that's the thing I'm ranting against @BondJames. We should not have a calculated a-hole like Spicer, who behaves like a sneeky Bond villain, to "distract from the marches". That's the first thing that's so rotten about that man and the Trump administration.......and that you support and uphold that kind of ghastly, sneeky, calculated media propaganda.
Our history is full of smart people, who use the media in such a way that only, and ONLY, a certain base is going to believe their crap. Our history is full of smart people who use 'alternative facts' (disgusting new definition) to strengthen the willingness of their base to believe whatever shit they puke out. Joseph Goebbels for instance.
One can't blame any person in authority for attempting to spin a story to suit their interests. It is up to the 4th estate to be a little more objective and balanced.
Having said that, I believe the Trump Administration should have acknowledged the marches, as the President did in a tweet yesterday. There's not much else to say on them, because they do not reflect policies that have been enacted. Just protests.
PS: Carl Bernstein is now officially a hack as far as I'm concerned. He lost all shred of credibility when he spun that Russia story. I'm sure he's hurting from reduced royalties on his Clinton book, but that's no reason for him to humiliate himself like he did a few weeks ago.
I think you lost credibility in here as well. And I think we both can agree that Trump is only creating more and more division and polarization. Are you happy about that? Answer that during your own silent moment.
One day you will hopefully wake up and realize that your whole naive world view is based on a lie. A lie propagated by the same media that you seem to adore. Whether you will able to handle that revelation is another question.
I agree that there is a diffenrece between the US and Western European countries that the latter have less income inequality and more social redistribution. But protectionism is actually not a good way tohelp the poor since protectionism first of all lead to higher prices for consumer products. It may also ake American products more expensive if they have to import some of the components. Some industries may beneift in the short run but others will lose.
And by the way, isn't Trump rather a symbol for the American injustice? I mean this man is proud of never having paid any taxes. So why is he now the right choice for helping the poor? Is he a working class man or a representative of the industrial America? Does he favour redistribution or better paid jobs? If we were talking about Bernie Sanders, I could at least understand it but Trump is not a socialist but a capitalist himself.
Trump always mentions that he wants to create new jobs. However, the unemployment rate is not even a big problem in the US. Many workers even have two jobs. And hasn't Obama actually at least tried to improve the situation of the very poor by his health reform. I don't know the details and its potential defecits but a obligatory health insurance system is actually something that every developed country in the Western hemisphere has had for years. Before Obamacare, the US has always been the exeption and now Trump is going to turn back the clock? But wasn't this made to support the very poor?
I completely agree that blanket protectionism is not a solution to help the poor. That is not what the President is proposing, bombast aside. He is planning to negotiate new trade deals with various allies. All of this was outlined in a detailed post I made a few months back on this thread where there was a comprehensive interview with Steve Mnnuchin and Wilbur Ross. The approach is clearly outlined there. This is not a protectionist agenda. That is too broad sweeping an analysis. There will be some tweaking and repositioning. That's all. A rebalancing. America is a huge consumer market (just like China is) and it is going to use that leverage more forcefully (like China has done). That's all.
Yes, of course he is a symbol of American injustice. He has never hidden that and actually proudly boasted of it during debates. He is also a symbol of American success. The two go hand in hand and are part of the reality of the American dream. Despite some here naively looking at America as a shining symbol, its history has been marked by violence, discrimination and self serving interests. Mr. Trump embodies that. This doesn't mean that he can't turn the skills that made him successful for himself into success for America. He is a patriot. You, as a European, have some grounds for concern, and I recognize that, because Mr. Trump does not represent you. As I said much earlier on this thread, being a billionaire is not an automatic disqualifier for the role of President. He does not favour direct Government redistribution (which is Bernie's technique). He favours incentivizing businesses to pursue growth oriented activities that result in better incomes. Similar result eventually (if it works) but done a different way. I support him because unlike most Republicans, he is looking to bring in market based reforms with Government guidance, which is a more 'activist approach' (where the traditional Republican orthodoxy is just to leave everything to the market). I would have put in a much higher personal income tax rate at the top end personally, but I don't think the Republicans will go for that.
The level of employment is a huge problem in the US. The quality of work has declined. People have less sustainable jobs and most of the jobs are in the service sector (which is far more volatile and not as good for quality of life). The reported 'unemployment rate' and the way it is measured is highly misleading. Many have actually stopped looking for work, and once that happens they aren't even counted in the statistics as being unemployed. The real unemployment rate is actually far higher than the reported number. This is the kind of lie that I was referring to earlier that nobody talks about (it's brushed under the rug by the media and by academics with political agendas). Of course, technology has a lot to do with this, but it's more than that as well.
Healthcare is a complicated issue. Yes, there has to be better healthcare for all. The current system has helped many in poverty and with existing health conditions, but is also far more expensive than it has to be due to political compromises that were made during its implementation by the prior Administration. The system is now cracking. Either the ACA (as it is known) is reformed (it is far from perfect) or it is replaced with a system that is more cost efficient. I suggest waiting to see what the Republicans have in mind. I don't think the US will ever have a full healthcare system like other developed countries. The ultimate solution will be a hybrid, but it may not look like what we have now. Mr. Trump is actually more in line with the Democrats on this than most Repubs are, and this is an area where the Dems would be well placed to cooperate with the Administration, to ensure some of their desires are incorporated.
Health Insurance is a commodity like anything else. It is bought and sold and responsive to market forces.
You want a good system, you need to create market efficiencies where consumers have actual choice.
Where the government plays a role ( in addition to working with insurers to provide a regulatory system) is providing a mandatory level of coverage for those who effectively do not have enough income. The rest of us can purchase the level of coveage we want or need.
And like car insurance you build in minimum mandatory levels of coverage.
For people that simply won't purchase (generally young guys) you health-tax them, and they get a proscribed government level of coverage.
The single payer system does not work. Our public health insurance in Ontario is falling apart. It's not even free. We all have to pay health taxes to finance it.
Its rife with inefficiences. It's bloating government debt, driving up costs of living. Its a source of endless wrangling between health-care providers and the useless government. We are driven to the States for services the government-plan can't provide -those that can pay that is.
Government is being forced into a hybrid system anyway, without even declaring it, as more and more services cease to be covered.
We pay out of pocket or purchase additional coverge via employer or private plans.
Eventually we will have to formalize an actual hybrid plan.
===
===@bondjames wrote Yes of course. Everything is negotiable
Trump was meeting with various manufacturing sector leaders today. He's deferred the NAFTA talks for a bit. This will give PM some time to get his ducks lined up
Obviously, a pure protectionist policy can inhibit export opportunities for domestic businesses and potentially drive up costs, if one doesn't have access to foreign markets.
But everything is negotiable.
There is no over-riding ideology in play. That does not work. That should be apparent, if one is paying attention.
Business by nature is flexible. It is never static, otherwise it dies. It is constantly adjusting its forecasts and business models to adjust to changing market realities.
Business does not rely on government for its existence.
Government is just part of the equation it factors into its operating models.
Trump is promoting an "America first" robust level of economic activity. I use quotations because that phrase doesn't actually have any tangible meaning. It more reflects an attitude.
And its not about "finding a solution to help the poor."
That challenge always exists no matter how vibrant your economy.
The poor will always be, those that can't work or won't work, due to any number of socio-economic factors. They will exist under any economic system.They are always with us.
If one truly wants to help the poor, engage in charitable work.
Work in a soup kitchen like I used to do every Saturday morning. The customers really do appreciate it. And the women that ran this thing.,would put any budget conscious business division to shame.
Every dollar was stretched to the max. I attended a few budget meetings. I was in awe of how well run things were. No bloat at all. Zip.
They didn't need my help. I contented myself with developing humble dish washing skills.
This little network of soup kitchens provided hot meals 7 mornings a week. Each location had a day of the week. Total grassroots. No government involvement at all. Operating very much under the radar in tandem with shelter networks etc.
The broader challenge though is to maintain a robust economy, so that there is maximum opportunity for people to work and prosper, and sufficient resources, both government and private, to lift up those that need a helping hand.
The trick is lift up, help, not enslave to a permanent state of welfare dependency.
Its an inexact science, but what we can do as individuals, is wake up each morning, and try and be as productive as possible, at whatever it is we do, whether it be driving sales for cutting edge business, or doing a good job mopping floors.
All this work has value and helps drive the broader economy.
@bondjames wrote
====
These bolded statements, I think are the understatements of the century. Journalism has become a joke.
The partisanship on display, especially on the talking-donkey shows we see on tv, has rendered the landscape a battlefield.
TV hosts can be provocative and ask compelling questions, without making it all about them, but most don't. The TV egos are front and centre.
We get infotainment instead. So pick your poison.
==btw, we learn on yesterdays football broadcasts that President Bush 41 is recovering and may very well attend the SuperBowl, age 92. It is being held in his home state, Houston Texas. And President Carter was not only visible at the Inauguration ceremonies, but also in attendance at the Georgia Dome for the Falcons blowout of the Packers.
Carter will no doubt continue on to Houston to support Atlanta in the big game.
So the two oldster Presidents might both be in attendance.
I figure Bush43 would be there as well, as a show of support for Texas and the old man.
Wow timmer, I'd pretty much written you off as a jackass, but there was substance here! =D>
Likewise I'm sure =D>
No, it isn't dead. Also @BondJames knows that. Because now....China comes along. Make no mistake, Obama was one of the frontrunners in creating TPP, to make sure that China would not become too influential as global economic trade force. And now you get this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/24/australia-open-to-china-and-indonesia-joining-tpp-after-us-pulls-out
Make no mistake, Australia needs China (and Indonesia). And this is welcoming news for trans-pacific trade. Yes, the USA bows out from TPP, but obviously China now sees every chance to step into that vacuum and to continue trans-pacific trading in a European Union-like style.
In the end the USA bows out from TPP because of populist forces and not because of a realistic view on how global trade works. In fact, after WW II the USA was a frontrunner in global trade. Now they will also realize what the dire and negative consequences are of protectionism and isolationism.
Ooowh, and then there's this news to follow-up on the above news. It includes a new strategy of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as communicated by the loveable Press Secretary Sean Spicer:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/24/trump-white-house-beijing-takeover-south-china-sea
So what's actually happening here? The new foreign US strategy is all about 'control' of international (trade) waters in the South-China. And based on Putin's strategy to illegaly invade Crimea, the USA now has a new strategy to initiate island-building on the borders of Chinese territorial waters and international waters in the South-China Sea.
Why? To 'piss-off' China? To destabilize that particular region? And to 'walk out' from TPP while at the same time you agressively want to 'control' the area for a new style of protectionist, old-style trade from the point of view of the Trump administration?
I think it's disastrous.
And lastly, does the Trump administration actually know that Dutch multinational Royal Philips NV has got 25,000 employees on American soil??
http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2017/01/23/the-morning-ledger-trumps-outsourcing-criticism-puts-u-s-companies-on-guard/
So now the Trump administration has serious plans to 'kill' jobs in favor of American brand General Electric, which has much more employees abroad. That means not 'creating new jobs'. It could possibly lead to 'domestic job transfers' from Philips to General Electric, which is something else.
A lot is uncertain at this stage, but the incoming Trump administration already makes Philips less interested in investing in the USA. And that means more uncertainty at this stage for 25,000 American employees who are grateful to work for Royal Philips NV.
To summarize everything: The Trump administration so far is only taking a lot of symbolic measures/executive orders, without looking at the long-term consequences and uncertainties. The protectionist/isolationist Trump administration falls back to ancient 20th century strategies with regard to economics, trade and geopolitics.
On the very short term it will only create a handful of new jobs in the USA, that Trump will fiercefully communicate as 'great results' with as much as propaganda as possible. But even after a few years the USA will realize how dire these new politics are, and that they actually kill more jobs for hardworking Americans.
IMO there's no such thing as a slightly pro-Trump topic and a slightly anti-Trump topic. IMO there's only a damn good discussion about the facts. And everyone should be included in that. And since @BondJames avoids the other topic, it only makes sense to post the same thing twice.
Yes, especially since the rise of shit like Breitbart, and since Kelly Conway inaugurated this ghastly new definition: "Alternative Facts".
Regarding TPP: Yes, in the short run China has an opportunity to attempt to forge better trade relations with Asian countries that were supposed to be part of that now 'DOA' pact while a void exists. It will be up to the US to counter that with outreach to the parties concerned and reassurances that bilateral deals will be structured quickly. The Trump Administration has a strategic view that large multilateral trade arrangements (which are used as an instrument of foreign policy by the State Department) are not helping the US worker & are difficult to enforce, renegotiate or extract oneself from.
As I mentioned to another poster, the detailed philosophy behind this is articulated by both Steven Mnuchin (Treasury Secretary nominee) and Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary nominee) in a post I made in December. There is an interview with both of them where they discuss their point of view on this matter. I happen to agree with it. President Trump mentioned it yesterday during his meetings with CEOs and business leaders. This has nothing to do with 'populism', which is a fancy word that's thrown around these days by those trying to score political points (along with 'neo-Nazism' and the like). Rather, this has to do with increasing the manufacturing opportunities for US workers. There is a school of thought that technology is taking all the jobs - yes, it is taking them and that is a long term trend (soon to accelerate). However, that doesn't mean that the US should look the other way as further job losses to other countries take place. A solid manufacturing base is essential for a robust societal 'middle class' and has been essential to the growth & sustainability of nation power. Germany realizes that. South Korea, Japan and China recognize that also. The US appears to be waking up to it, finally.
Ultimately, the US appears to be pursuing a neo-mercantilist economic policy (which both China & the EU have been doing for years) under the Trump Administration. There will inevitably be increased global tensions as this 'reset' takes place, but the alternative would have been to let China continue to eat America's lunch (those who believe America was winning the trade war with China are in a dreamworld. As I've already indicated in previous posts, they are stockpiling gold, building win-win bilateral relationships throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America, and attempting to take control of certain 'international' sea territory in Asia). On that last point about The South China Sea waters, they were taken to The Court in the Hague last year, and lost a ruling.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/china-no-historic-right-to-south-china-sea-resources-court-says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/five-ways-china-lost-in-tribunal-s-ruling-on-south-china-sea
Sean Spicer indicated yesterday that the US will protect recognized international waters, forcefully if required. That is what I expect it to do.
The Council on Foreign Relations recommended a new approach, relationship and strategy to the China (which it saw as a geopolitical threat) conundrum two years ago, and the Trump Administration's stated approach (outside of TPP) seems to mirror those recommendations quite closely. Bob Gates was on Charlie Rose yesterday and indicated that he understands what the Administration is trying to achieve (he, along with Condolezza Rice & James Baker recommended Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State to Mr. Trump).