Churchill was a creature of 19th century British imperialism (and culture). As such he may have met the standard of being a "war criminal" even while sleeping. — tim wood

Have to say this, in the 19th Century those laws of war or basically civilized conduct was followed many times far more as during our more "civilized" times. It is especially after the slaughter of WW1, the extensive propaganda effort to dehumanize the enemy and the ideological charge to the war effort that changed the way we look at war. With WW2 it turned even worse. As I've said earlier, the only modern conflict where rules of war were followed by both sides was the conflict on remote islands in the Southern Atlantic between the UK and Argentina.

Yet we naturally emphasis brutal tactics that the Imperialist nations dealt with native populations and totally disregard that actually Victorian manners did also surface in the manners in the warfighting of the British. There are so many examples of how totally differently belligerents interacted back then that we would have difficulty to relate to a time when officers were likely aristocrats. Who would think today that if the British Army captured enemy officers that would be taken to the British Isles to be prisoners of war, these officers would be then let free to travel inside the country if they give their word of honor not to try to escape? That kind of reality isn't going to come back.

(The White flag in war isn't actually for surrender, but for negotiation, ceasefire or truce and it's use comes from Ancient Times as Tacitus mentions it. White flag signifies to all that an approaching negotiator is unarmed, with possibly an intent to surrender, but also a desire to communicate. Persons carrying or waving a white flag are not to be fired upon, nor are they allowed to open fire. Today we assume that these codes of conduct will not be followed and at best that the person wants just to surrender. Progress?)


Anyway, the attack on Churchill is basically done to get a response from the British public who have a positive view of the person. If we delve into commands given to the Bomber command or US Army Air Force and discuss how the given orders were in relation to then current rules of war, the discussion will interest just a few armchair military historians. So better to attack Churchill to get a media frenzy in the UK.

That simply isn't true.

For starters, all sides did take prisoners of war. Even if treated most inhumanely (especially by the Japanese and the Russians by the Germans), enemy soldiers were still prisoners of war. Not terrorists or unlawful combatants, capable to dealt like spies. Shot the next morning after interrogation.

In the German case the tactics have to be understood from it's ideological base. Russians and Poles were untermenschen while British, (white) Americans or Nordic people were not considered as so (if a slightly inferior race). Norwegians and Finns (the so-call Nordic race) so lightly that Germans were permitted to marry them. And this is directly seen in the actions of the Wehrmacht and just how the fighting and the war was different in the Eastern front as in the West.

Just to give an example, when my country brokered an armistice with the Soviet Union and had then to fight the Germans (who just weeks ago had helped to repell the Soviet attack), suddenly the Finnish civilian population of Northern Finland found itself under a new enemy. And how did the German forces react? Basically they made a fighting withdrawal to Norway and burned down every town, blew the bridges and mined everything. And the population? The rather small population of Lapland were let to take refuge in Sweden, sometimes even with the Germans assisting the move to the Swedish border. The later depictions of SS troops shooting Sami people simply isn't true.

In short we have to acknowledge those actions that indeed were war crimes, but should not use a large paint brush and declare everyone a war criminal.

Earlier some people were worried that Trump might stage a coup. I didn't agree with that and I just presumed that what could follow is epic Trumpian confusion. Yet seems that isn't going to happen.

There's no "smoking gun" for election fraud. No ominous plans for a coup. Who would implement it? As I said, you would need a lot more balls and cunning than this trash talking media bully can do. The QAnon people might have been active in social media, but they aren't in the government. And the Republicans aren't going to rock the boat for Trump. They just understand that 76 million voted for Biden and 71 million (was it so?) voted for Trump and Trump is listened in Republican circles. At least still. Seems to be that Trump won't go with a bang, but with a whimper. For Trump that is fitting. The response that attorney general Barr's memo, mainly put there to woo the President, did get some response from his own department:



Perhaps finally now the Trump hating media is understanding that his immature tweets aren't worth the outrage or even commenting and what he does comment doesn't matter so much, because it's not actually real US policy. These media outcries against Trump has only kept Trump in the limelight and his followers happy about thinking that Trump is doing something. Because the actual work is not much. Just look at the wall. And not starting a new war (just killing an Iranian general and getting Iran to lob missiles into US bases didn't start it) is actually, really, not a huge accomplishment.

At this time for the Germans that meant preparing the young to advance technology for military and industrial purpose. England strongly rejected this education because it wanted to protect it classes, and education for technology tends to make everyone equal, because the child from the poorest home, educated for technology, does not remain in the low class. The focus of English education was to be an English man and woman.

The US with its democratic values, stumbled onto the benefits of education for technology when it mobilized for the first world war. Technologically Germany was the most advanced, and the US had to scramble to catch up. — Athena

This is a very good take on the situation in the 19th Century. Yes, back then it was Americans that went to Germany to educate themselves. And before WW2, a huge portion of science was in German language and many academics of those time were fluent in German. After WW2, English dominates as a true lingua universalis. And this is one of the cornerstones

If human beings are to be more than well trained, reactionary animals, that obey their masters, or get pushed to the margins of society, then they must learn how to be civilized humans. Leaving moral training to the church does not work in a democracy with liberty. In a democracy with liberty the people must have training for good moral judgment and cultural values. Citizens must be adults, not God's and the king's children. — Athena

Yes. Let's look at this from the viewpoint of the ruling elite. This is the double edge sword for those in power: educated people create a better economy, while an uneducated people likely obey more traditional rulers. Hence many dictators and totalitarian system try the illogical goal of having more doctors, engineers and scientists to advance the technology of the country, yet assume that these highly trained clever professionals won't stray into the realm of thinking about politics or basically using their head. Let's remember that Hitler had been in power only 6 years before he started WW2, hence all the German engineers and scientists had studied and learnt their profession basically before Nazi totalitarianism took hold.

In our current time Saudi Arabia is the best example of this: it desperately tries to use it's wealth into buying the best armament and technology and tries to create technology hubs, yet you don't make a Silicon Valley out of nothing in a society that is in the end quite backward. And those high-tech weapons need an army of very qualified engineers to be kept in service. You end up just with a huge segment of the population being foreign workers.

Germany has progressed as a civilization better the US since WWII. The US missed the lesson's Germany learned and the US took their culture for granted. — Athena

Some define this to be the benefit of the loser of a war. Not only Japan and West Germany were forced into soul searching when militarism had catastrophically failed (East Germany simply assumed it had nothing to do with fascism, hence for example the East German army was made in line with the old Wehrmacht as totalitarianism continued there). In fact after Carthage surrendered to the Romans and stopped competing with Rome for the dominance of the Mediterranean, it had a renaissance and prospered so much that the Romans finally decided to attack and obliterate the whole city.

Not only has the loser of a war think things over, it really has to build all of it's infrastructure and manufacturing plants up from scratch, which modernizes the society in a rapid pace and give an edge to the manufacturing. While nobody had bombed the US during WW2, it simply dominated other countries in the 1950's. But then it didn't have to rapidly modernize. Hence when the World caught up, many parts of it's industry was old and couldn't compete. Add that these areas were left alone and Americans created "the Rust Belt".

From this:


To this:

Nice to have a history discussion.

What is true that Hitler wasn't a proponent of strategic bombing and didn't put the effort on long range bombers. Hitler's army was focused on the land force, obviously because of the geography of the country. This can be seen from the total lack of four-engine long bombers in the Luftwaffe. What is notable that in 1935 the American B-17 (12 700 built) flew for the first time, the Liberator in 1939 (with over 18 000 built) and even the heavy Lancaster bomber flew in 1941 (7 000+ built).

Germany relied on medium bombers, which there weren't so many. Most produced bomber was the Ju-88 with 15 000 bombers, yet it was a medium range twin engined medium-bomber. Now the German equivalent long range bomber that was twin engined the Heinkel He-177 Greif, first flown in late 1939, that had a production line of just 1 000 aircraft, while the Amerikabomber Me-264 was cancelled with just three prototypes made (first flight in 1942). The German long range bomber program simply failed. And after having attacked Russia basically Germany had it's hands full: the Luftwaffe was needed in everything and obviously the air war lead to a situation that Germany had to focus on fighter aircraft (nearly 34 000 Me-109 and over 20 000 Fw-190 fighters built). When the Western allies were only in contact with the axis in Africa, it is understandable that the air war took center stage. A bit different if there wouldn't be the English channel, but the panzers could invade Britain through a land route. Hence the focus of bombers isn't just a choice of following blindly Douhet's strategy.



Yet if Hitler thought so at the start of the Battle of Britain, we should not that he did have other thoughts later, but simply not the capability. In a similar fashion one might note that Hitler didn't use the vast amount of chemical weapons at his disposal, as he thought the allies would have similar amounts, which they actually didn't have. If we forget the use of one very infamous pesticide.

That Germany ever carpet bombed in the UK indiscriminately before the British did - and I'm now even certain they did so in retaliation after Churchill did. — Benkei

Yeah, once the other side has done it, that makes it justifiable. Yet a weapon system like the V2, successful in hitting a target as large as London is hardly a weapon of pinpoint accuracy. And when you call them reprisal weapons you hardly take humanity into consideration.

A lot of the economic recovery during 2000s can be quite simply accounted by the booming oil prices and the accompanying rise in Russia's oil and gas production. — SophistiCat

You know what is a real genuine reason why the Soviet Empire collapsed?

Gorbachev tried to take the vodka bottle away from the Russians. He thought that it was really bad that the Soviet male was dying in his mid 50's. Yet Russians need the vodka bottle to endure the system posed on them. So it didn't work. Soviet Union collapsed. Same thing was tried earlier with similar outcome by only one Russian ruler, and that was Nicholas II. Revolution happened back then and the Tsardom was history. Now you might smile at this, but it's really a genuine reason. Putin made it sure that vodka was cheap and plentiful. Unfortunately, the younger generations of Russian don't drink so much vodka as before. Bad thing for someone like Putin.

And just think what would happen to the US if the supply of all drugs were stopped: from weed to opioids and everything in between?

Awe you speak of the American dream where the only thing government provides is a police force to protect private property. — Athena

The fundamental idea behind is that well known mantra of "limited government" and giving freedom for everyone to pursuit their happiness. And that is a struggle for many, which is a problem.

In the US the idea of a good education system is neighborhood controlled schools that are as good as want the people in that neighborhood can afford. — Athena

As neighborhoods aren't similar, in fact even US states differ from each other just like member states of the European Union (even if English is spoken everywhere), one cannot think that neighborhoods, communities and cities can all provide equal opportunity. Hence here is where things start going wrong. Worse schools make it harder to get to the best secondary schools or to apply to tertiary education.

Awe yes, the United States, the richest nation in the world. What would happen to our wealth if threw it away on that scum? Look people get what the deserve and it would be stealing form those who work hard for their money to tax them and give the money to the undeserving. — Athena

You wouldn't have so many problems or crime, for starters. Not that problems would go away altogether. Still our societies (yours and mine) try to function as meritocracies, which do inherently create inequality. The issue is to have a system with social mobility and not have the classes turn into a caste system.

Do you think? but that isn't what is causing the rioting in our cities is it? — Athena

No.

Of course there's a long thread about racism and I won't go into that. perhaps the basic problem in the US is that many confuse Bernie Sanders, who basically in Europe would be your average social democrat, with Hugo Chavez and his kind, which are a totally different socialists.

They won the fight. It just took a long time to realize their win. — Athena

Exactly.

It should be understood that the conservative right accepted and took the idea of a welfare state as it's own in the Nordic countries. This is something that Americans would find really hard to understand from people who call themselves right-wingers. A similar thing happened with capitalism: the modern social democrat does not cry for a Marxist revolution, but just wants to curb the excesses of capitalism, yet understands that there is a time and place for free market capitalism. Especially when elections are around, the ordinary leftist and the right-winger won't admit that they have accepted issues from the other side, naturally, but their silence does tell a lot.

Our unions made some progress and then past President Reagan destroyed the unions. — Athena

I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater.

Well, have to say that some progress has happened. For example the US hasn't relied on the ancient Roman tactic of "Deal with an insurgency by creating an artificial desert" like the Soviet Union did in many places in Afghanistan. Creating millions of refugees is a war strategy.

The statistics tell something:

Civilian casualties during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (9 years): 562 000 - 2 000 000 civilians killed

Civilian casualties during US invasion of Afghanistan (19 years): 38 480+ civilians killed

The US might have hesitantly understood that just killing enemy combatants may not lead to victory as an 60 000 strong Taliban, with the safe haven of Pakistan, can be formed from a population of 32 million.

(The next generation getting ready to fight the foreign occupiers.)

Difference between a "domestic terrorist" and "foreign combatant" = raising your hand and saying whatever to a 10 second pledge (that really means nothing to pretty much any religion [the world is temporal and without everlasting meaning or consequence]). So. Yeah. — Outlander

Citizenship does matter. Ask any illegal immigrant.

Especially with laws of war these factors are important, hence it's no wonder that with laws on terrorism they are similar. If you are a soldier in wartime and wear an uniform of your military and surrender, it's a war crime to kill you. If you don't have that uniform on and the enemy captures you, it isn't a war crime to kill you as a spy even today. So yes, it comes down to things like the clothes you wear.

You're right. I think the reason I misremembered is because Hitler was still careful not bomb civilian targets in the UK at first, hoping for an alliance, and Churchill being the first to carpet bomb indiscriminately in Germany. — Benkei

If remember correctly, Hitler responded to a tiny force of British bombers bombing Berlin by starting massive bombings of London. The idea that nations can lose their will to fight and can be demoralized by bombing their cities was the theory of Douhet. The opposite appears to be the reality with conventional bombing. Yet politicians are sensitive to these kind of issues and many times the response if more about politics than military necessity.

Once Germany started bombing the UK with V-1 flying bombs, a thick wall of anti-aircraft artillery was deployed all along the southern coast of England. When the bombing with V-2 rockets started, which didn't cause much damage (more prisoner labor died manufacturing the rockets than were killed by them), the whole strategic bombing effort was diverted for some time just to bomb the known manufacturing plants.

Similar issue happened during the Gulf War. When Saddam Hussein fired few Scud missiles to Israel in order to get the country to respond (and hence get popular support from the Arab street), the Americans diverted a huge number of aircraft and special forces to look for the mobile units in the vast deserts of Iraq. Few if any were found.

But I am not sure this discussion belongs in a thread about economics? — Athena

Actually, it is.

The 19th Century name for economics was "political economics", which honestly describes just how linked economics is to politics. The idea of "economics" being just this private sector machine spewing out production and GDP is totally wrong. Social problems, povetry, corruption or the way government treats the private sector effect very much how the actual economy works. Unfortunately these factors aren't at all easy to mathematically model, hence they are usually left out from mainstream economic models. Yet looking at which countries economically prosper and which don't, these things do matter.

The simple link is of course is that a well functioning economy creates prosperity for the people and taxes for the government, which then can ease the social problems. Yet there is also a link the other way around: if social problems are left unchecked and become large, this increases the lack of social cohesion, increases crime and heightens political tensions, which then create an atmosphere that decreases economic investment and business activity. You never have at the same time a booming economy and large scale rioting on the streets at the same time.

Even if homelessness effects a very small portion of the population, it is something that everybody can see. (It should be mentioned that young adults living with their parents, for example, aren't the ones when we talk about the homeless, even if they literally don't have an own home). We are now seeing an exodus from California now as the high cost of living and the possibility of working from home gets many to move away from the traditional centers like Los Angeles or San Francisco. Yet many of those moving away do also mention the homeless problem and the tent cities on the street as a reason. Homelessness isn't just a personal problem for those who are effected by it, it does effect the whole society. It easily reminds us how much social cohesion there is in our society. If there isn't any, people are genuinely scared of each other. So I think this is a topic that can and should be discussed on a thread about the economy.

Homelessness in Finland in the late 1960's early 1970's depicted by a cartoonist. As parks had a Puistotäti "Park Aunt", a Kindergarten teacher, taking care of children outside in parks, the parks also had an Puistosetä "Park Uncle", the homeless alcoholic sipping his bottle in the park. Back then the traditional hobo here was a WW2 veteran that hadn't gotten accustomed back to civilian life, which tells this is an universal problem as many homeless in the US are veterans from the various wars.

That's 70x more in population with only 25x more space.

If I added 70 people to your household overnight do you think things would run as smoothly as they do now? — Outlander

So how then China or India have far less prisoners than the US?

Far more people in those countries than the US.

I have heard claims that the United States has some of the most incarcerated persons relative to other countries in the world. Is this just a statistical blunder or fact - with considering populations of other countries relative to prison populations? Why is this so? — The Questioning Bookworm

It's a fact.



I think one reason is that American culture wants the legal system to punish people. Punishment as a warning to others. Comes from the history of the country, I guess. The system isn't there to help criminals.

Hence Americans can be in amazement of other prison systems, like here Michael Moore with the Norwegian Prison System:



Of course have to be said that Norway has one example of a highly successful domestic terrorist able to kill a lot of people. I think he is in solitary confinement and treated (obviously) as a public threat.

Very nice to hear that people actually do voluntary work.

Perhaps I seem to be a "socialist" when I do say that these things ought to be taken care by the government and not to be left only to voluntary organizations as they can do only so much. Above all, it policies have to be smart and understand that homelesness is a complex issue, yet it can be minimized and dealt with. Many need far more help than just a roof over their head. Even if there is mental disorders and addiction problems, many don't have these issues. In my country in the 1950's there were about 70 000 homeless people, in 1987 the number had decreased to 18 000 and now in 2020 it's estimated that there are 4 000. Four thousand in over five million people isn't much (0,008%), which all are sheltered. In the US the number is something like (0,175%), which is twenty times the amount than here. For comparison, LA County has roughly twice the population of my country, Finland, yet has about 60 000 homeless.

I think this isn't a problem of money in the US, but the lack of sound social policies, social work and organization. The biggest obstacle is the view that the Welfare State is socialism and that you cannot force people into treatment etc. Reducing the homeless by 50% is totally possible for starters.

I think the Allies committed war crimes regularly. Carpet bombing was a UK invention. That's one. Purposefully targetting civilian centers another. — Benkei

This isn't true, actually.

The theory of strategic bombing as a war winning strategy was made famous by the Italian general Giulio Douhet in the 1920's and you should remember that the first example of concentrated aerial bombardment of a city happened during the Spanish war, which was made famous by Pablo Picasso's famous painting, Guernica.

(Theories put into action for the first time: Guernica)


Then the Germans had their famous London Blitz, where (thanks to Hitler) the focus was shifted to bomb London and other cities from the more smarter strategy of bombing RAF fields, radar stations and airplane manufacturing plants. The Germans failed to produce a heavy bomber and had to rely on medium bombers, so this really isn't something that the Allies invented. Had they had an bomber capable of crossing the Atlantic, American memoirs of WW2 would be different.

Not to say that war crimes were done by both sides, yet some nations did commit far more than others and few didn't do much.

But it'd be a huge gamble, and massively destabilising to the country. So again they might not do anything other than sow doubts this time around. — Echarmion

We can all agree that the last thing you mentioned the Republicans are indeed doing.

It's one thing that Trump will never give that concession speech to Biden. Another thing that he will go on with a coup and it being successful. The Trumpists do need the "smoking gun" for election fraud, Trump tweeting of huge election fraud isn't enough.

Of course the possibility of the worst outcome is there, even if it's unlikely. I still think the most likeliest issue is a Trumpian mess, the biggest one, lots of confusion and some rioting between the most devoted Trump supporters and the most devoted haters of him. Luckily most of this activity happens online, not on the streets.

We are about to find out if this trust is well placed. I hope they are right, to be clear. — Olivier5

I urge people not to lose faith on your fellow citizens. Even if they can be annoying at times.

No, Hitler didn't play several rounds of golf while staging a coup. Say what you like about the Fuhrer, he made an effort. — Kenosha Kid

Yep. He had a mission which he clearly stated.

What Trump wants is his devoted fans, media limelight and income after his term. What he lacks is dedication and firm determination to truly go full dictator and stage a coup. Because then he would have to do more than bitch and tweet. Just look at the wall, btw. Was it finished?

Trump has got more than passive support, he's got 70 million votes and a host of extreme right militia armed to the teeth, and biding for their time. — Olivier5

Well, just don't confuse those 70 million votes to all being QAnon believers. Or do you think that all Biden voters believe that Trump is the new Hitler?

I still believe that the many Americans believe in their Republic can get over an election. And that's what counts.

If Americans are not polarised against plutocrats, they will be polarised against each other. — StreetlightX

And that's what the plutocrats want. Divide et impera.

The way it's done in Africa, all you need is a few battalions backing you up. You don't need the entire army t make a coup. — Olivier5

In many African countries the entire army is a few battalions.

Also what is needed a) poor government, b) lacking and nonexistent institutions, c) a history of military coups and d) active or passive support from at least a portion of the people for a military overthrow.

Besides, the US armed forces don't just slavishly turn up and obey the whims of an erratic President. As I stated earlier, they already turned down Trump's call to put down riots in the summer. That should be a point here to remember. Trump called for the military and the military didn't come. Only the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff walked around the White House. As a military based on a voluntary force, the last thing they want to do is to tarnish their positive reputation with jumping on the runaway Trump trainwreck.

What is likely is just a huge crescendo of utter cacophony and craziness to the Trump administration. Trump won't admit defeat and the outcome is simply that the transition is very clumsy and the US won't focus on World events for a while. That is what is going to happen.

The show will be a spectacle, likely. Before Trump will come up with the idea to run in 2024, he will adamantly refuse the win. Maybe he will put on a shadow government (the REAL administration) at worst. Yet somehow I feel the country won't separate even in that case.

In other words, they are preparing a coup... — Olivier5

Notice the word when.

Likely what is happening is that the Republicans are dealing with sore loser that may in his tantrum break up the party even worse. First it should be understood that:

1) ALL Trump administration officials will not admit the loss now when that would be to directly challenge their own boss and lead them going the way of Mark Esper and others.

2) Similarly only few Republicans like Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse or Susan Collins , that basically are already against the President, have admitted the obvious that Biden won. Others fear the backlash from Trump and the especially the Trump crowd. Remember still that the elections was a close call, not a humiliating defeat for Trump. And the focus is still on the Senate race.

3) All this leads to a situation where the Republicans appease Trump and put on this show, because just what you say is enough. For example the Barr memo on election fraud is quite lame, as usual.

4) The media will of course make the situation more dramatic.

But let's think of this situation that Trump would be truly thinking staging a coup:

He's up to something, he's replaced most of the civilian leadership in the pentagon in the last 24 hrs. There are lots of rumours going around, my preference is to trigger emergency powers due to civil disobedience, insurgence, or war. So that he can claim that the transfer of powers is postponed indefinitely. — Punshhh

Well, Trump can fire his administration officials as much as he wants, it's a bit different with the actual armed forces. Let's just remember that TRUMP UTTERLY FAILED in using active army units to quell the rioting in the summer. They weren't used. The now fired Mark Esper was against it and especially also the top military leaders were against it. Troops from the 82nd Airborne were withdrawn from the Capital and Trump had to rely on a hodgepodge of various services, including the prison service. And let's remember that then it wouldn't have been so outrageous action as there's many case of actually the US President using active army, starting from Eisenhower. Hence when we already have an example how Trump fails in these issues, it's unrealistic that now as a lame duck Trump would be able to get the military to do something totally unheard of.

Trump is no Putin.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that listening to what the Secretary of State said and listened a bit more further. The reporters question was loaded. If Trump hasn't yet acknowledged the election result, Pompeo surely isn't going to be suckered to make the admittance on behalf of the administration when Trump wants to go through the process. Notice his smile and manner there. And hence Pompeo continued talking about that process now happening and referring to the year 2000 election. This isn't coup talk.



Then when they say that after investigations that there has been widespread fraud etc and they won't admit that Biden vote, only then you are going into the true political crisis/civil war territory. Or when you have two competing administrations in January 20th.

Is there a coup d'état going on, or what? — Olivier5

Nope. What is going on is a Trump tantrum. A coup isn't when the executive uses his power to dismiss people that he can dismiss.

Besides, last chances that Trump can fire people!

I love how you all force me to think! :heart: — Athena

That's a nice compliment to the forum, Athena.

You will not be planning a new computer program and giving any thought to technological development, but you may discover a better way to make a spear because your survival pushes you to do what you do better. — Athena

Making a spear better is likely a far more difficult thing than planning a new computer program, when you think of it. I'd say we are always making similar simple advances, but just adding up on the aggregate collective understanding. "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" as Newton once said.

You are right about the cult of personality and populist movements. Populism has this fascination with strong leaders. You can see it also for example in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez (to give an example of leftist populism). Once the strong central figure disappears, a populist movement can be hopelessly lost.

It's contrary to a deeply ideological movements, for example libertarianism or the green movement, where many people can feel sympathy for the cause and the ideology, but have problems with odd leaders with the movement.

It's difficult to pin down exactly which parts of this are relevant to what you quoted. While there does seem to be plenty of excitement (don't get your news from internet forums), I feel like people are much less excited by the prospect of Biden than by ridding themselves of Trump. Either way, the point of what you quoted had nothing to do with people's feelings about the election; it was a reaction to hearing a president who can speak eloquently, humbly, respectfully, reasonably and positively after four years of hateful verbal diarhhoea, before remembering that actually used to be expected. — Kenosha Kid

Half of the country is excited of Trump leaving. That's for sure. But come February 2021, just few months from now, that isn't the focus anymore. Then the fact is that Biden has to pick up from the situation that Trump has left the US.

Before that btw, we'll see an epic lame duck period with the last days of the Trump presidency.

there is no 'Trumpism'. To create an -ism of any kind, even facism, you need principles. Trump has no principles, only wants and impulses, which he executes spontaneously, as they come to mind. — Wayfarer

Trump surely doesn't have an ideology, but the reason he was elected in the first place isn't a mystery. Call it simply populism: be for the ordinary people against the ruling elite. A deviation from the ordinary, what Trump presented, was enough to get the Republican candidacy and finally the elections. Once, with close race the second time.

There would be a huge demand for someone that a) goes against the ruling elites, b) would fight political corruption, c) go with protectionist trade policies and d) change mainstream US foreign policy. These issues mentioned could be followed by both leftist and right-wing populists. Then add doing something for the people in "fly over" country and their jobs, it's all there for anyone to take the torch from Trump. If you are a right-wing, add there the law & order scheme. If on the left, add a spice of criticism to the robber-baron capitalism and then there's the torch from Bernie.

I think Trump was a President his supporters simply believed to be more than he was.

It's also quite something to realise that Biden's speech wasn't particularly special; it just feels alien after a mere four years of Trump. Like I said earlier, Trump has lowered the standards for everyone — Kenosha Kid

Not actually.

As you can observe from even this Forum, there's not much genuine excitement for Biden as there was when Obama came into power. Excitement breeds loyal following. Trump's thing was to be outrageous. Not the thing that people who voted for Biden want from Joe. I assume the only thing that his voters will give him slack if he gets more senile in public appearances and speaking, but not on the policy decisions the administration as a whole makes.

A lot to describe there, especially on a global scale.

I think that for starters, we concentrate on how things change while something that has stayed the same for decades we simply take for granted.

It's not just risky, it's counter intuitive. Increased efficiency and specialisation in production should lead to lower prices. Rising prices are purely a result in increases in the money supply or debt leveraging. — Benkei

True.

The real problem in the "Market economy" of the present is that the natural market mechanism that would lead to asset prices to fall isn't tolerated. That isn't free market economics. Yet you have great examples from tiny countries like Iceland that the most healthiest thing to do is let the bubble burst, put the people who have done outright crimes to face legal actions and have that quick deflation, and then the economy is back to being healthy. It really is about political power.

One could expect, understandably, the value of an asset to keep going up during the times of sustained profitability, demand, production, and other sound economic conditions. This is not speculative bubble -- this is called sound investing. — Caldwell

True, but notice there are indicators as Price to earnings ration, the P/E. Usually with "normal" stocks this is something like 30, meaning that the company will pay in dividends it's stock price in 30 years. If a company grows and creates profits, that ratio could stay the same. If it anticipated to grow a lot, maybe the P/E would be 50 to 75. Now you have stocks in the P/E 100 - 1000. Now of course, the standard rhetoric is that these companies have a bright future, but now they aren't yet profitable, but will soon be. Amazon has an P/E of 98 now, is it this "small company destined to have far brighter future"? The company is over a quarter century old and is the leader in it's field, but I guess it will have to grow multiple times.

How many multiple times bigger you think Amazon's revenues will grow?

You see, there is an alternative reason for Amazon to have such a high P/E and that is index investing. In index investing, you just invest in the biggest companies because you want to mimic the index. And Amazon is on of the biggest companies in SP500 (or other indexes). Why? Because the index has gone up! Someone might notice the reason for a bubble when many follow this investment strategy.

OK.

Likely this thread will go over 500 pages (as there are only 25 to go).

About a month ago, he put out a statement telling the UK no trade deal if they renege on their part of the deal with the EU that relates to Ireland. The House did the same. — Baden

That had escaped my notice, thanks!

Interesting, first signs of Biden's foreign policy.

I guess this thread won't reach 500 pages.

Luckily.

?

When has Biden talked about Ireland to the UK Prime Minister?

Now is the moment for the American people to begin plotting a viable third party for 2024, to finally oust the two parties that have been ruining the country for decades. But it won't happen, because Americans are as dumb as they come...keep doing the same thing and wonder why everything sucks, idiots. — Merkwurdichliebe

The duopoly has found the perfect formula:

1) Nominate Presidential candidates "Bad" and "Even Worse"
2) A third party on the ballot will automatically mean that the "Even Worse" will win, and hence Americans won't dare to vote the third party or will be accused to be the reason why candidate "Even Worse" won.
3) Depict the House of Representatives and the Senate being meaningless and focus on the Presidency.
4) And of course, portray the "primary elections" as the way how people can influence the "democratic process" of choosing the President and not by creating new political parties, which would then battle the duopoly.
5) Discourage grass roots movements that would start competing at the municipal / city / state level with the duopoly.

Duopoly rules the US.

What about the post-Trump Republican party? — VagabondSpectre

Good question. Where does the Republican party go from here?

What if they run again with Trump in 2024?

Third world countries are not going have our standard of living, making shoes and clothing for wages that keep these jobs in third world countries. That is not good for them nor all the people in the developed countries needing jobs. — Athena

Economic history tells how to do it.

Actually many countries have become more prosperous thanks to globalization and thanks to the West's indifference on manufacturing going to cheaper countries. Yet that strategy of using cheap labor to lure low skill manufacturing to a country goes only so far. The next step, a huge one, would be to use that income to increase the education and the skill level of the future labor force that would then interest medium to high skill manufacturing to the country. To have those educated professionals, engineers, scientists etc. in your workforce. And in order to preserve them, as they simply don't migrate to the West, the income has to be near to the Western standards. This in turn then creates the class that every country wants to have: the educated middle class, which in turn will demand things like taking care of the environment. And above all, they are consumers, which themselves create the demand for a service economy. Not that poorer people wouldn't think that the environment is important, but if you face literally hunger, the environment isn't you biggest worries.

So what could be done?

Starting from the problems of the present globalization would be a good choice. Now it's the emphasis on globalization is on owners of companies getting as much as they can. This isn't the way things went in the West: the labor movements demanded and got labor laws, work safety standards and above all, negotiated collectively pay increases, which then made working class families more prosperous and created the consumer society. If you prevent the labor force in a Third World country to get also these important rights and higher salaries, then the country will stay poor as there isn't much of aggregate demand. No "take off" of the economy will happen.

Secondly, Improving the institutions in other countries is important, but this is something they themselves have to do. Foreigners can help just so much, but they cannot run the system. Also the focus on economic and monetary policy should be the ordinary people, not the richest people. The elite in a country should understand it's role and invest in the country, not move the money to Swiss bank accounts or luxury real estate in the US (in fear of losing the money if it stays in the country).

And thirdly, having the vast majority of people able to get a decent long term mortgage for a decent home will create prosperity in the long run. For example in Egypt, the vast majority of people rent their homes, meaning that all their life they haven't saved, but are as poor as when they entered the workforce. We take it granted that the financial sector (usually) works OK for us, but that isn't so in many countries.

Trump lost the election. It is over. — Baden

Nice to see that you are an optimist! :up:

I fear the incoming Trump denial and maneuvers... but let's see how much punch the bully really has got.

What you have said is kind of like figuring the value of a homemaker. Traditionally a man supports the woman, and we know his value by what he earns. The wife does not earn money, so her value is zero, right? — Athena

That's the classic example how economics get's things wrong: if the mother stays at home, looks after the children and takes care of the house, that isn't seen in the GDP. A bigger problem is in Third World countries where a lot of people are subsistence farmers. Farmers that live off their land and have minimal amount of transactions again aren't counted in the economics statistics, which is the reason why some countries seem even poorer than they are.

I lost any trust in economist when I realized they are not grounding their thoughts on economics with geological reality. — Athena

Some do that, but many just choose the fancy mathematical models that nobody else understands to make their findings "academic" or "professional" and are happy focusing on the mathematic models and equations. As long as everybody else is saying the same things, it doesn't matter if the World then develops totally differently as one has described. Just call it a black swan event.

Biden takes a slight lead in Pennsylvania. If that happens, Trump has a lot of states where to demand a recount.