Bill O'Reilly said at Steven Colbert show that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same, they represent the angry Americans.
Maybe they represent the angry Americans but their approach to solving the US problems is different.
Bernie Sanders represents the left political current influenced by what is happening in Europe. It is a current that favour collectivity than individualism.
Donald Trump would represent the individualistic America, in which you have to defend you own interests with little regard to others.
The Republican Party are attacking Bernie Sanders view as unamerican. But why it is colective action seen as unamerican? After all the American Revolution and all the wars, except Vietnam were a collective action.
In nature when a group of social animals are under threat they cooperate, when they are safe, they compete.
US is separated by 2 oceans by the rest of the world, and has 2 weak neighbours and it was seldom under direct threat, and this favoured competition.
In contrast the European countries were always on the threat of their powerful, neighbours, so they had to utilise at maximum they human resources.
The high education was created in Europe by the state to have functionaries,engineers and military personal that were needed.
The free education was used to promote ideas of common origin and common language among different men coming from different provinces.
I think, now US feels more on the pressure from other countries, and it must shift from an individualistic ideology to a more collective one.
After the Word War 2 it was the only industrialized nation that wasn't destroyed, so few years they were number 1 producer of good in the world. But now China is producing 30% of the goods from the world.
The dollar was the worlds preferred currency, till euro appeared.
USA still has a powerful military but it expensive maintain it and more expensive to use it.
The US poor classes feel the pressure of globalisation and emigration.
If some is born in a poor family in US it doesn't has the hopes of an East European, an Indian or of a Chinese to go to college, to work hard and to land in a good job, and to help the family in this way.
He must go to work. But were?
The manufacturing was moved to China. The services were taken by Indians. The agriculture is made by Hispanics.
What a president can do about it?
Let's suppose that a Mexico-USA border wall will be built and all illegal emigrants will be sent home. Who will pick the produce for low wages? None, the fields will be fallow, the farmers bankrupt, and the US will have to import the produce that till now was produced in the country.
Ok, let's suppose that the Americans are ready to pay more for vegetables in order to sustain their economy.
Service industry: how you can stop companies using customer care centers in Indian, when for 1000$ you can hire 3 college graduates? You cut off the communication with India?
The US government cannot stop companies to bring foreigners to work in US with temporary visa and they want to shut off all the calls with India?
And companies will be more competitive globally because they will use more expensive American workforce while other companies will use cheaper workforce from India?
How can a president stop China from selling cheap goods in US?
They will make an embargo?
China will sell in Mexico and then the merchandise will be sold in US.
And not all Chinese products are bad, if you want a cheap electronic device, China is the place to go.
To find a cure to these problems a collective approach is necessary.
The ancients said about cures: "prima non nocere" - first, do not harm.
I think that Bernie Sanders is less harmful:
Ok, maybe the budget will be in deficit, but some kids will be in college and some people will have health care.
Donald Trump is more harmful,because he can ruin international relations. Already he has lost some business partners due to his anti-muslim stances.
His anti-hispanic rant will alienate the South America.
And his stance against China will make things worse. Let's suppose that he "convince" Chinese president to step back from Asia, and to accept some unfavourable economic treaties. How the chinese president will save face and make Chinese accept these unfavourable treaties if Trump brags about humiliating China?
If the chinese president had to enforce the treaties it he will lose his function and a more anti-american president will rule China, and maybe the things will escalate to a war in SE Asia.
If it doesn't then he will defy USA and Trump will have to enforce the treaties, using military force if necessary.
His domestic economic plan seems good on paper, but I am afraid of his attitude: America is rule by idiots, they need me to tell them what to do.
All the dictators started like this: Mussolini,Hitler,Stalin,Sadam Hussein and Ceausescu.
The started very energetically, the obtained a short term success, they gained confidence and they thought that they are smarter than average and started to rule personally, and they lead the country to the disaster.
Maybe they represent the angry Americans but their approach to solving the US problems is different.
Bernie Sanders represents the left political current influenced by what is happening in Europe. It is a current that favour collectivity than individualism.
Donald Trump would represent the individualistic America, in which you have to defend you own interests with little regard to others.
The Republican Party are attacking Bernie Sanders view as unamerican. But why it is colective action seen as unamerican? After all the American Revolution and all the wars, except Vietnam were a collective action.
In nature when a group of social animals are under threat they cooperate, when they are safe, they compete.
US is separated by 2 oceans by the rest of the world, and has 2 weak neighbours and it was seldom under direct threat, and this favoured competition.
In contrast the European countries were always on the threat of their powerful, neighbours, so they had to utilise at maximum they human resources.
The high education was created in Europe by the state to have functionaries,engineers and military personal that were needed.
The free education was used to promote ideas of common origin and common language among different men coming from different provinces.
I think, now US feels more on the pressure from other countries, and it must shift from an individualistic ideology to a more collective one.
After the Word War 2 it was the only industrialized nation that wasn't destroyed, so few years they were number 1 producer of good in the world. But now China is producing 30% of the goods from the world.
The dollar was the worlds preferred currency, till euro appeared.
USA still has a powerful military but it expensive maintain it and more expensive to use it.
The US poor classes feel the pressure of globalisation and emigration.
If some is born in a poor family in US it doesn't has the hopes of an East European, an Indian or of a Chinese to go to college, to work hard and to land in a good job, and to help the family in this way.
He must go to work. But were?
The manufacturing was moved to China. The services were taken by Indians. The agriculture is made by Hispanics.
What a president can do about it?
Let's suppose that a Mexico-USA border wall will be built and all illegal emigrants will be sent home. Who will pick the produce for low wages? None, the fields will be fallow, the farmers bankrupt, and the US will have to import the produce that till now was produced in the country.
Ok, let's suppose that the Americans are ready to pay more for vegetables in order to sustain their economy.
Service industry: how you can stop companies using customer care centers in Indian, when for 1000$ you can hire 3 college graduates? You cut off the communication with India?
The US government cannot stop companies to bring foreigners to work in US with temporary visa and they want to shut off all the calls with India?
And companies will be more competitive globally because they will use more expensive American workforce while other companies will use cheaper workforce from India?
How can a president stop China from selling cheap goods in US?
They will make an embargo?
China will sell in Mexico and then the merchandise will be sold in US.
And not all Chinese products are bad, if you want a cheap electronic device, China is the place to go.
To find a cure to these problems a collective approach is necessary.
The ancients said about cures: "prima non nocere" - first, do not harm.
I think that Bernie Sanders is less harmful:
Ok, maybe the budget will be in deficit, but some kids will be in college and some people will have health care.
Donald Trump is more harmful,because he can ruin international relations. Already he has lost some business partners due to his anti-muslim stances.
His anti-hispanic rant will alienate the South America.
And his stance against China will make things worse. Let's suppose that he "convince" Chinese president to step back from Asia, and to accept some unfavourable economic treaties. How the chinese president will save face and make Chinese accept these unfavourable treaties if Trump brags about humiliating China?
If the chinese president had to enforce the treaties it he will lose his function and a more anti-american president will rule China, and maybe the things will escalate to a war in SE Asia.
If it doesn't then he will defy USA and Trump will have to enforce the treaties, using military force if necessary.
His domestic economic plan seems good on paper, but I am afraid of his attitude: America is rule by idiots, they need me to tell them what to do.
All the dictators started like this: Mussolini,Hitler,Stalin,Sadam Hussein and Ceausescu.
The started very energetically, the obtained a short term success, they gained confidence and they thought that they are smarter than average and started to rule personally, and they lead the country to the disaster.
