For Americans, globalism is primarily of benefit to the most rich citizens. Globalism directed for the benefit of the most rich Americans appears to exploit the long-term relative economic position of the United States in the world. The rich get richer while the vast majority of Americans don’t (relative to other nations of the world). The rise of American feminism coincides with the economic decline of the United States as it compares with other nations -especially those of Eurasia).. It is an unnecessary coincidence yet cannot be easily corrected within the contemporary subversive-activist mileau.
Many Americans continue to view the economy as if it still had the world-leading output health it had during the Eisenhower administration when it accounted for 40% of the planet’s economic output. Asia had yet to come on line while Europe was yet rebuilding from war. After 1960 the United States began a gradual downhill slope with wages for male workers stagnating after 1974. Modern feminism was just getting its second wind then and sought greater empowerment and prosperity. It had no concern about the comparative decline of the U.S.A. near-term or over the long haul. Feminists coupled with minority populations of the United States in affirmative action for-themselves while the ship was taking on water. They rose with and developed an anti-white male, anti-American world view. The domestically resistive power sought wealth and felt natural alliances with global populations of peer race and feminist movements.
Today the United States has about 4% of world population and about 20% of the economic output and perhaps somewhat more income. National income differs from gross domestic product in that foreign outflows are subtracted to reflect a more accurate picture of the annual income of a nation. As a percent of the world income the share of the united States continues to decline. The conditions that brought it to be a world leader changed.
Europe’s peak percent of global production and wealth, according to one well-known economist and author, was in 1913. The United States did have natural resource advantages of course and a lead from its heritage of brilliant Euro-American inventors in technology and a unified central government yet the great world wars and the vast disruption to most of the industrial production of the rest off the world undoubtedly conferred a temporary advantage to the production and trading position of the United States that reached its peak in the 1950s. At the present rate of decline the portion of global income of the U.S.A. in 2050 may be about 4%. Yet the most rich may take 90% of that even so.
The United States could perhaps act politically to make America great again, yet that would be quite challenging. Presentably feminists and certain minorities are wroth with the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency instead of Hillary Clinton. Homosexuals were too happy with the Clinton-Obama approach to homosexual issues. Homosexuals in the Democrat, decadent, queer, new world order would be assured companionable health love-robots with penis’ extensible from an inch to 3 feet in measure for their sucking pleasure. Opioid and queer machines would for democrat mules probably be regarded as mating America great again. The Democratic party mule is seeking ways to re-empower themselves and impeach through any means possible the Trump administration.
One device the Democrats have for attacking the Trump administration is through foreign policy. They have made it virtually a crime for association with Russia. Yet Russia is and was a key to making America great again.
Russia has vast lands and natural resources as well as bright, articulate yet bold people. That is a strength as well as a vulnerability. Russia in the post cold-war environment should be a natural ally of the U.S.A. instead of the enemy it was treated as by the Clinton administration that sought to redistribute the Ukraine and Crimea to the west. Russia and the Ukraine have fewer than 200 million people together and are regarded as easy pickings targets for global expansionists, perhaps in error.
President Barrack Obama said the 21st is the Pacific century. He was looking at the great population and economic potential of Asia. He grew up in Indonesia. Asia already has more than 60% of the global population and 40% of planetary output. A trend toward development and demographic inertia in economics coupled with equalization of planetary income distribution obviously would bring Asia to be the world economic leader. Versus the billions of Asians with new economic and military power Russia and its smaller population might experience vulnerabilities and political shocks the next century while the United States with just 4% of the planet’s population and increasing public debt would be unable to afford a dominant military structure. It would diminish in global political significance to be comparable to France. Asian immigration and economic power would naturally expand into domination of the markets and political control of the United States as the United States for a few decades was an 800 pound gorilla in certain Latin American economies.
American women are about 1.5% of the planet’s population, with American blacks comprising a slightly smaller percent. As they exploit foreign alliances to advance their own national standing vs white men the advantages will be temporary. Eventually the U.S. position would tend to merge toward and be equilibrated with global standards and agenda set abroad in politically bad cultural power centers.
Of course some Americans wonder if it isn’t possible to de frappe the Asian edge. After all there isn’t a Christian nation in Asia and it has numerous atheists as well as Muslims. American women may one day be required to wear hijab or to be atheists under Chinese cultural values. As a nearly insignificant percentage of the world population Americans generally will have little say in defining their own cultural and economic position in perhaps, half a century.
President Trump has at least made a gesture toward resuming American greatness. Like King Canute though he cannot roll back the tide of history. The 1950s are gone along with the American position in the globe. It is not too late to lever the remaining advantages of the United States into a better than global average position for the century ahead however.
What made America great was technological superiority and natural resources given by God with intelligent leadership and a boundless faith in manifest destiny (not the Monroe Doctrine). Americans believed they were working the will of God in His plan for the advance of mankind. He has the tools to accomplish progress. The tools required for that task are more challenging to get today, and are easily misapplied.
Technological proliferation in the communication and information age is nearly instantaneous. Perhaps the sole way to create a national advantage through state-of -the-art technology is to join it to state-of-the-art and inventive ecospheric conservation and restoration leadership that benefits all mankind. It should make the ships rise in all of the harbors of the world as well as the United States. Most people didn’t mind too much that Bill Gates or Stephen Jobs got very rich since their products were good and improved the quality of life of users.
In an age where income inequality is increasing in the United States the investment in Asia is great. In the United States tax cuts go to the most rich and wages stagnate for the majority or little rise. Does the value of the stock market rise because the corporations are investing in China, or because all of the free money issued to the big banks has nowhere else to go; loans that pay little interest don’t profit banks so much as buying the market. Perhaps the market rise is really market inflation limited to itself rather than consumers.
Feminists and blacks use a class-exclusive economic analysis based on sex and race instead of individual economic wealth (or lack of it) as a citizen. That divides. Neither does it regard the position of the U.S.A. in the global economic historical tide and currents except perhaps as they seek to reduce income inequality for race and gender. In the process they conflate ideas of income inequality nationally and internationally across race, gender and other lines with national GDP comparisons. Methods to change national sex and race inequality differ generally from those required to change international GDP disequilibria.
Gross GDP inequality may be theoretically changed in several ways. Plainly though within a neo-democratic political environment the sole pragmatic goal would be to find some sort of fair cohesion of income with demographics where nations have a proportionate share of of income globally in respect to population. Regardless of how one reaches that status in the future, American become a very insignificant global player with just 3 or 4% of the world income.
The most rich Americans will not be of help ion changing that future. People like Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs invested in China decades ago. The most rich 1% of Americans will be global plutocrats and remain rich even if the people of the United States sink to slightly below average planetary incomes levels because of As 50 million Americans today have less than a half of one percent of national income, women will still strive to be the leaders in that social structure and Sieg heil the 1% while descrying male advantage.
President Trump expressed the right sentiment about making America great again yet it nearly impossible to do so with the economic engines of the past. In the future Americans may be blamed, rather unfairly, by Asians, for creating global warming. Democrats have become accustomed to regarding Russians as the new Jews for pogroms and blame in their allegiance to globalism and Asia and hatred of U.S. nationalism. One day Americans too may be dumped with Russians as blame-worthy peoples (of Christian nations). Atheist American feminists in radio naturally find resonance in the atheist Chinese communist party yet probably regard its all-male Politburo as repressive and chauvinistic and at any rating, worthy of long-range investment of political effort to evolve.
If President Trump could be a ecospheric technology leader as well as a genius at getting a moon ecosphere started as a first step in exoplanetary human habitat creation he might be able to create the long-term better than average lifestyle position for ordinary Americans. It is doubtful that he can morph that technocrat ensemble realistically. Japan and Russia should be natural American allies in the effort to make lava-tube Eco-habitats self-sustain on the moon and mars. On Earth the U.S. should revolutionize new transport system that do not require vast road building or atmospheric degradation. Better economic models and quicker, less exclusive patent regulations need be made into law. President Trump would have his hands full, and cannot even get a new alternative energy network started in Puerto Rico. Fundamentally, America is snoring through history with blind faith in Asian wealth-management dreams.