It depends on the social environments of the countries the factories are moved to. If workers’ protections and environment regulations in those countries are lacking, the move will not help those countries or the US. The move will just serve as a way for companies to avoid regulations in the US. It will not help grow the consumer markets in those countries. The world economy will not grow as a result.
If workers’ protections and environment regulations are adequate in those countries, the consumer markets in those countries will grow, the world economy will grow, and the US economy will grow as well.
So free trade agreements, if set up improperly, will be harmful, but can be a good thing if set up properly.
By the way, other than avoiding regulations, there are two more reasons for American companies to move factories to other countries: to increase competitiveness by reducing cost, and to maximize profits. So many American companies will move factories to other countries whenever it is possible whether people like it or not. There is nothing much that anyone can do about it. The US government can only use taxation to reduce the benefit of increasing profits American companies will receive by moving their factories to other countries to offset the immediate cost to the US economy brought about by the move.
I am totally against racism. So I am not supporting Donald Trump’s campaign. But I find myself wanting to defend him again and again, because I just want to be fair to him, as I want to be fair to everyone.
Trying to avoid paying taxes and openly admitting to doing it is probably the most politically incorrect things to do of all. But for Americans who are struggling like Trump and who are against government’s overspending (for some, it is overspending on social programs, for others, it is overspending on wars), this is the right thing to do.
Trump may be running a huge business empire. But his company is not publicly traded and may not be profitable. His company’s losses are not shouldered by the public. So he does not have the luxury to be generous.
Trump is someone with a lot of capabilities, as we can see from his ability to run many businesses. But he is struggling, whether he is admitting it or not. This profile is shared by a lot of Americans. This is the reason why there is a Trump campaign, and it is giving the Clinton campaign a serious challenge. If the Clinton campaign wins, a lot of Americans lose.
By the way, I have an explanation for Trump’s tendency to switch subjects and interrupt others. I think it is because his mind works very fast, much faster than an average person. Of course, being impolite is also a reason for him to interrupt others.
As to whether Trump’s failure in his businesses means he will fail in running a government as well, I can tell you this: running a business and running a government is totally different, unless you think profiting from a public office (like Hillary Clinton did) is desirable. Running a business is to bring fortunes to oneself, while running a government is to bring fortunes to others. Bringing fortunes to oneself and bringing fortunes to others require different skills and mindsets.
Housing prices getting too high is the reason why many people can not afford any housing. So the housing market needs to follow the free market rules, be allowed to fall when it has to, and not be interfered with or propped up by the government.
By propping up housing prices, the government is helping out those who speculate in the housing market, letting them make a lot more money from their real estate investment than they should, and kill a lot of working people’s American dream in the mean time. This is the reason why the American dream has become impossible for a lot more working people. This is also the reason why the US economy is not growing much.
Donald Trump may not have liked the housing market crash for a noble reason. But he was with a lot of Americans in this matter. I find it regretful that he is not educated and articulate enough to offer an effective rebuttal in the debate. But being educated and articulate while being unintelligent and unthoughtful makes a presidential candidate even less qualified.
A map with a line around the South China Sea is what the current Chinese government has inherited from the previous Chinese government.
What is the value of that map? The current Chinese government and a lot of its supporters on this matter think that the map represents the rights for China to own the part of the South China Sea within the line, which is almost 90% of the South China Sea.
However, has any agreement between China and the countries around the line on the map ever been reached? If not, the map only represents an ambition, a desire, a plan, not a fact or reality. It only represents a goal that China tries to achieve, not a historical fact as the current Chinese government is claiming.
The reason why this goal is now being pursued openly despite of all the oppositions is that the current Chinese government is now more confident of its ability to achieve this goal and has more domestic support for this ambition because of increased nationalist sentiments, both of which is the result of increased national strength, including economic and military strength.
However, increased national strength can not alter historical facts and should not be used to try to alter historical facts. The current Chinese government may now have the money to buy ads all over the world to sway public opinions around the world. But historical facts will not change even if people’s perception of them change.
In Chinese, what the current Chinese government is doing is called 自欺欺人 – deceiving oneself while trying to deceive others (i.e., being delusional).
When people do not like a candidate, they flock to the other candidate, overlooking all of that other candidate’s shortcomings. As a result, two candidates who are disliked by most people have got so much support nonetheless.
The possibility of letting the candidate one dislikes the most get elected has been keeping people from stopping their support for the other candidate even though they know that this other candidate is not all that great.
There are several problems with voting for the lesser of two evils. One is that you are still supporting an evil. Two is that your vote is used to elect a candidate who is unqualified. Three is that by supporting one evil, you are inviting or pressuring some people to support the other evil (to counter your support for the evil that they dislike more) which is against your own wish.
If we do not want to see an unqualified candidate getting ahead in the race, stop supporting all unqualified candidates.
Have some respect for people in the opposite camp and stop your support for the candidate that they do not like for the right reasons.
I do not understand why some people have a problem with the Trump campaign being able to find people to work for it for free. It is fine for people to do all sorts of volunteer and outreach activities supporting any campaign. So why is it a problem for people to work for any campaign for free?
In fact, if we do not want people with money to have more say in politics, all campaigns must use only volunteers.
Campaigns should not be judged by the amount of money they are able to raise. If they can be judged by anything, the number of people who are willing to volunteer is a good one.
The reason why an administration can be corrupted is that a candidate needs money to run a campaign, which include money to pay campaign staff.
The more grassroots a campaign is, the more it is going to rely on volunteers. The more volunteers a campaign can recruit, the more grassroots it is. So it is a good thing that the Trump campaign is able to find people to work for it for free. I would challenge the Clinton campaign to do the same.
No. Absolutely not.
Reason No.1: She will continue the wars that cost the US government so much that the US government will get deeper into debt, the US will need more quantitative easing, and the US economy will not be able to recover. And as the US economy can not recover, Americans will be more against immigration.
Reason No.2: She will cave in to demands from the anti-immigration forces, just like Obama.
Reason No.3: She does not mean to keep her promises.
Reason No.4: The immigration reform advocates are not powerful enough to deserve her attentions.
Finally, because there are so many flaws in Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, by supporting Hillary Clinton, immigration reform advocates are inviting more people to fight against their cause. This is an even more important reason not to support Hillary Clinton.
Immigration problems can only be solved by someone who is not looking to be popular, who dare to do the right thing for the people. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton are people who want to be popular and tend to cave in. So immigration reform advocates must look to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
Hillary Clinton may not be herself a neocon. But she needs neocons’ support and becomes their representative as a result. In a sense, she suffers from the Stockholm syndrome, like Patty Hearst.
This is a common problem the last few Democratic Presidents shared. Because neocons are war mongers, and wars are costly and so hurt the economy and the people, the Democratic Presidents are supposed to fight neocons in the interests of the people of their own party. But because they need support from neocons (who are powerful and wealthy) to win elections, they join them instead.
In fact, the reason why neocons are powerful and wealthy is that they gain power and wealth from wars, which are authorized by the Presidents. This is the reason why the wars keep going – to keep neocons powerful and wealthy so they can continue to have control over the Presidents. It is a vicious cycle.
No. What he has just made clear in his latest immigration speech is that he will keep the same immigration policies as his predecessors.
The enforcement of unreasonable immigration laws has never worked and will never work. The only thing that can happen is he becomes even more brutal and inhumane (which I do not think he wants to) and greatly hurts the society and the economy as a result.
Dealing with immigration problems in different ways does not mean that you have to promise a pathway to citizenship to people who are out of status. In fact, if you allow people to come and go freely, a lot of people would go knowing that they can come back any time they want to. By forcing people to leave without giving them the rights to come back, you are forcing people into hiding, which makes law enforcement more difficult and hurts the normal functioning of the society.
Trump may be thinking that he is finally standing up for the American people. But when you stand up, you usually stand up against people who are powerful, not people who do not have the power to fight back.
This is just proof that Trump is indeed like what the Clinton campaign has painted him as.
Both seem to be more interested in getting the job than building a movement. Neither has very strong convictions. Both will be mediocre because neither will put up a fight for anything. For example, when it comes to wars, read this article and you will see: Why Washington Is Addicted to Perpetual War. They simply can not think outside of the box. And they will just echo what others are saying.
Trump has almost been able to hit the neocon establishment that Hillary Clinton represents quite a few times. But because he does not want to risk being unacceptable to others, he failed when he almost made it. For example, when he said Obama founded ISIS, he almost hit the neocon establishment at the right place. But then because he was not able to tell it straight to the public that Obama’s policies and actions in the Middle East created ISIS (or more precisely, the conditions for ISIS to thrive), he failed to defeat the neocon establishment outright. He leaves them unchallenged on this matter and loses the most important opportunity to defeat them.
Unfortunately, the way American elections and commerce work, people with new ideas or unconventional ideas are not appreciated. When these people write, the websites they write on do not get enough of traffic to be profitable. And people look at how profitable a website is to determine if the ideas posted there are worthy of attentions. When these people run for offices, they don’t get a lot of donations. And people look at how much donations they get to determine if their candidacy is worthy of attentions.