Well, it was no debate. A debate presents opposing speakers who first display their ideas and research respecting a given subject and then are allowed to criticize what the other has said. Our Trump/Clinton foofaraw was more a recitation of political blather, unsupported assertions and glittering generalizations firmly rooted in air. Both candidates undertake to enrich the workers … somehow. Both are apparently in favor of good and against evil, and each accuses the other of reversing the two. Both salt and pepper their diatribes with statistics that may be reasonably accurate but are not traced to relevance. We see two clowns selling snake oil. In of course, our opinion. But then, they are addressing an audience of public school grads and dropouts produced by the system our governors have perpetuated.
We see two salient subjects in dire need of address: First, the unbearable insolvency of most of the world financial system resulting from the political leaders’ reliance upon unrepayable debt to temporarily appear to fulfill their promises to the feckless voters. Second, how candidates plan to deal with the oncoming expansion of wars intended to obscure the results of the first conundrum. Neither of those seems on offer in public. Neither candidate wishes to disclose a list of spending that must be ended because the money to continue does not exist. .
There is a reason for that omission: Admittance of those to the conversation would likely bring to notice the fact that the related problems have been manufactured by those same political leaders. Debt is simply the result of spending that which you do not possess, right? For which you, or in this case, our political leaders, are responsible. Best avoided …
Next, there are the alleged solutions to the problematical issues. All of them depend upon either more spending by government, ignoring where the money spent can be found, or the forbidding of free economic competition, that always impoverishes an economy. Mrs. Clinton will as the critics of Great Depression economic theories put it, “spend us rich” while Mr. Trump will somehow force businessmen to operate in the U.S. high cost environment while competing with low cost Asian competitors. As Mrs. Clinton glosses over the effect of withdrawing the money her government will spend from the economy, so does Mr. Trump ignore how his compulsory high prices will be able to avert insolvency for his captive producers. It is all bombast, seems to us.
Backing up a step, if we the people have fallen to the level that we fall for this sort of drivel, we deserve what will inevitably result. We will have earned it.
We note that our species seems to do best under duress; we rise to adversity. When things are too easy, we become spoiled, lazy. Historically, that seems a repeating cycle. After things remain bad enough for long enough, we get off our hindquarters and go back to work, returning to a more honest and less corrupt social framework, at least for a while. But that change may require generations.
We appear to be witnessing one of those massive social collapses almost worldwide at the moment; few countries are honestly solvent. Few are not corruptly governed. (If any). We inhabit by all appearances, the ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
Let us, if that is so, hope that perhaps our grandchildren will enjoy the fruits by inhabiting the next rising cycle …