If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[Jurgis]

For those who enjoy long-form journalism, the following New Yorker piece on Obama is one of the best articles I've read this year. Whether left or right, I think we as human beings can all admire the man's rationality, integrity and perhaps most importantly, optimism.

 

I think that we will miss him.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

 

Great though painful article. Thanks.

[Jurgis]

Here is what it means to be poor in America, from Scalzi.

 

Certainly not the same as being poor in India, or in America 200 years ago.

 

Right. And I see how people from poor countries might dismiss American poverty as non-issue. Yeah, I have friends and relatives who immigrated to America and are doing "fine" while working mostly menial jobs (for some definition of "fine": some still have no health insurance and just hope not to get sick; they may have to retire back home where it's much cheaper to live; etc.). So it's easy to say: "Hey everyone in America could do as well as an immigrant who cleans floors and wipes asses of rich seniors". Except that's a huge simplification and does not really cover the issues of American poverty.

[DonFanucci]

Two takeaways from this thread: 1) Most people are not in honest pursuit of the truth on political matters. 2) Pushing one level below concrete policy into philosophical thought on the issues is met with insult and diversion back to the level of the concrete policies.

 

Everyone seems interested in the precise definition of 'poverty'. Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

[RichardGibbons]

But, you worked hard and made millions selling the business that you built Richard. Why change the trend of the system that has worked so well towards the left? 

 

It's a reasonable question.  Part of the answer is that I didn't do it within the American system, and couldn't have done it in the American system.  If we're talking about the Canadian system, then there are a few things I'd change, some toward the left, and some toward the right.

 

Another part of the answer is the recognition that people are different, and luck played a huge role in my success--likely more than my own efforts.  Like, I was born in Canada, come from a middle class background with caring parents who impressed on my the value of education, I was really good at school, particularly math and science (I was best math student in my city), I had good nutrition, and had few worries about money.  All these things are luck.

 

Plus, I know that my personal outcome means almost nothing. So the right strategy isn't to generalize from it. Rather, the right strategy is to try to arrange the system to minimize the effects of luck, so that the people who work the hardest have a chance at the greatest success.

 

Why do you believe that it would be easier to get out of poverty if there was more entitlements (what a terrible word after all), more regulations and a larger safety net?

 

Not sure where I said that I wanted more regulations. I largely want regulations of the kind that ensure people get what they pay for in cases where it is unreasonable for individuals to properly investigate whether they would get what they think they're paying for before they buy. (e.g. Someone shouldn't need to investigate every bridge every time they drive over it, nor send their food to a lab to see if it will kill them before eating it).  I'm not sure if this level of regulation is more or less than there is now.

 

With a larger safety net and expanded social programs, I think it would be easier to get out of poverty because the statistics show that it is when you compare income mobility across countries and across states.  (That said, I don't necessarily think the same about everything in Canada, since there's diminishing returns.)

 

All these things make it more difficult for people to get out of poverty: reduced motivation, complications. And when one gets out of poverty in the current system, he or she likely gets out a few more along the way with whatever business was created and/or the inspiration.

 

I don't think the reduced motivation is that significant an effect.  Pretty well everyone seems to want to get ahead. I think it sucks being poor, and people care a lot about relative wealth. This keeps motivation high in most cases.

 

When they did guaranteed income experiments, the only classes of people who significantly reduced the amount they worked were older teenagers, who spent more time being educated, and mothers who spent more time taking care of their kids.  To me, both those outcomes seem good for society, and also don't support the premise that lower motivation as a result of social programs is a huge problem.

 

So I take it from the fact that you're against complications, that you're in favor of a single payer healthcare system?  It's far less complicated, collecting the taxes that are already being collected, cutting out all the waste caused by middlemen in the US system, maximizing the negotiating abilities of the single payer, cutting the tie between jobs and healthcare, greatly increasing employment mobility.  The evidence I've seen indicates that single payer leads to the same outcomes as the messed up American system, at two-thirds the cost, and you don't get all these people dying because they can't afford medical care, nor bankrupted from some random illness. A no-brainer, right?

 

I am not saying that we should eliminate all safety nets but, we should certainly be worried about its expansion and effects.

 

I agree. Everything should be done thoughtfully, and not to appease some populist sentiment.

[RichardGibbons]

Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

 

Sure. Is morality always black and white, or are there ever shades of grey? Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

 

I think there is moral justification for society to prevent its members from doing whatever they want and also making those members pay for it, primarily because there doesn't seem to me to be any reasonable alternative.  Are there any rapists or arsonists around here who strongly disagree, and can offer their own solutions?

[rkbabang]

Pushing one level below concrete policy into philosophical thought on the issues is met with insult and diversion ...

 

Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

 

Take cover!

 

You keep talking like that you might accumulate as many people blocking you as already block me.  Philosophy matters, but most people like to pretend that it doesn't.  Mostly because they have not given much thought to the underlying philosophy at the base of their beliefs.  A libertarian starts out with a philosophy and derives his policy from it (communists & real socialists do this as well), but most people just have a mish-mash of policies they support with no philosophical basis for why they feel that way.  (notice I said feel not think).  There is no reason that someone who is pro-abortion rights need to be anti-gun rights for instance, but we are told by the 2 party system that those go together.

 

[Cardboard]

"So I take it from the fact that you're against complications, that you're in favor of a single payer healthcare system?  It's far less complicated, collecting the taxes that are already being collected, cutting out all the waste caused by middlemen in the US system, maximizing the negotiating abilities of the single payer, cutting the tie between jobs and healthcare, greatly increasing employment mobility.  The evidence I've seen indicates that single payer leads to the same outcomes as the messed up American system, at two-thirds the cost, and you don't get all these people dying because they can't afford medical care, nor bankrupted from some random illness. A no-brainer, right?"

 

It is not a no-brainer at all because the Canadian system means garbage for all. I have seen my father treated here and in Florida and the difference is absolutely striking. Now, I know that you seem to disregard personal experience but, to me it counts and what I also hear from many others.

 

Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure. Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world. People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.

 

And extremely strong unions and terrible hospital administrations who render the system unproductive.

 

Then other stupidity from the system such as prescription renewals requiring a visit to the doctor and pharmacists who can't do basic/common sense prescriptions.

 

So no Canada is not perfect. Very far from it.

 

Cardboard

 

[DonFanucci]

Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

 

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

 

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

 

Philosophy matters, but most people like to pretend that it doesn't.  Mostly because they have not given much thought to the underlying philosophy at the base of their beliefs.  A libertarian starts out with a philosophy and derives his policy from it (communists & real socialists do this as well), but most people just have a mish-mash of policies they support with no philosophical basis for why they feel that way.  (notice I said feel not think).

 

100% true.

[tengen]

Something that might generate a little hope for the USofA, Van Jones has a respectful dialog with people who voted for Trump in Gettysburgh:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinions/van-jones-messy-truth/

 

Apologies if someone already posted this but I think it's worth viewing multiple times.

 

[cwericb]

Not to hijack the thread but...

“Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure. Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world. People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.”

 

This is a pet peeve of mine.

I have always thought that the Canadian medicare system could be drastically improved if only we had a small basic charge. Even a $10 or $20 charge per visit with a maximum of something like $100 per year. It would stop many of those nonsense visits that consume doctors time and the revenue produced would help defray other costs. For those concerned about the fee increasing and eroding free medicare, require an act of Parliament for any increases, or tie it to the inflation rate. Or does this make too much sense?

[Cardboard]

Cwericb,

 

We agree on something politically charged!!!  ;D

 

Catdboard

[DooDiligence]

Time to snip this thread...

[cwericb]

Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard.  :)

 

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.

[rb]

Wow, I take a day of meetings and all of this develops on what's supposed to be a dead thread. I won't go through everything, but I'll make a couple of points.

 

1. I started talking to the libertarians from the basics. I wanted to point out that the the state/gov't can create value/wealth. Law and property rights is the most obvious point but there are others.

 

2. I challenged the idea that prosperity in the US is not provided by the fact that government is more limited there. My thoughts are along the lines that there are lots of countries out there with similar prosperity to the US. Most of those countries have taxation/governments bigger than the US. So the source of prosperity is not the size of government. But the answers are not based on figures, no it's theft, slavery, etc.

 

3. My "we" post was meant to show that there is not this great wealth utopia in the US. Yes a lot of people may have microwaves and air conditioners and still be poor. I still wouldn't want to be "them". As we've seen with this election, a greater lot of people that do not fall into those poverty statistics are not happy with their situation nonetheless and guess what, they're looking for a government solution.

 

4. I agree that the poor in the US or Canada could seem down right spoiled compared to the poor in India or some other God forsaken place. But I don't think that's an excuse. Should we strive to converge to the lowest denominator or should we strive to excel and push the boundaries for the better? Btw, I don't think we should institute new welfare programs. (A Camaro in every driveway?) But i do think that as we make decisions they should be balanced and move in the right direction for prosperity and welfare of the people. I don't think that a tax cut for top earners paid for with a cut in Medicare is a move in the right direction.

 

5. A lot of people are trying to politicize economics. This has a lot to do with people's beliefs and not so much with economics. Economics is vulnerable to these influences because it's a slow moving science (for good reason) and very influential. But economics itself is agnostic to political thoughts. Maybe pay more attention to it's data and mechanisms and less to talking heads that know nothing about economics. Probably not a lot to do with this post, but it's a pet peeve of mine, and while I'm on a roll..... why not?

[rb]

Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard.  :)

 

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.

 

Cwericb,

 

We agree on something politically charged!!!  ;D

 

Catdboard

I think that despite our leanings and heated discussions we agree on a lot of things.

 

For example on Trump. I think he will be (hopefully) a medium sized disaster. Nonetheless, he won the election. Yes he lost the popular vote by a good margin(he should probably note that), but that's not the way it works down there. So he should be president. Congress will do what Congress does, and there will be another election in 4 years. Personally hope he does all 4 years because Pence is down right scary.

 

On protestors, a lot of these people didn't vote? Why not? Wouldn't it have been so much easier to go vote, get the problem solved, and not have to spend so much time making signs? Maybe learn a lesson a lesson and vote next time. You won't see me at a protest, I generally don't think they achieve much. I go vote - I think that's more effective. But then I respect the rules of our democracy which say that people are allowed to protest, so I'm not gonna stand in the way. Go ahead and protest. Also there have been very successful protests in the past - Gandhi and MLK come to mind, maybe Vietnam. Those changed the world. So obviously I can be wrong and protest can work. People should be free to do it.

 

On the subject of healthcare my views are formed mainly by empirical data, namely that a public "medicare" system is more efficient. It delivers the an amount of care for a lesser cost. Yes, some of that care goes to some people that didn't pay enough for it and is subsidized - but let's put that aside for a bit. As Cardboard points out the Canadian single payer Medicare system is not all milk and honey.

 

One of the ways that the system keeps costs under control is some rationing of healthcare and triage. This system is as old as healthcare itself but what it means is that you get some crappy customer service. The outcomes are pretty good (you'll get fixed) and the price is good. But it's not unlike dealing with the cable company - and nobody likes doing that.

 

However I don't want to blow up the system by saying to hell with it, let's make it all private, but maybe introduce some more efficiencies into the system. Maybe then use those efficiencies to reduce cost or redistribute towards better customer service. I agree with Cardboard's suggestions. There should be some nominal fee to see a doctor. That can be structured in such a way to discourage frivolous visits but not prevent access to people with legitimate sickness. The prescription visits I agree are another low hanging fruit. I know a number of doctors that only write prescriptions with zero refills. In my opinion this is tantamount to fraud and we should do something about that.

 

I'm not sure I agree on the STD testing stuff because I'm not sure if society would benefit from a bunch of idiots out there distributing syphilis. But I also posit that there are further efficiencies that can be used. Such as the gov't using monopsony power to negotiate drug prices. If Costco can use its size to negotiate good drug prices for its customers why shouldn't the government use its size to do the same?

 

Anyway just trying to point out some area where I think we think alike despite leanings and approaches. Apologies for the wall of text... :)

[RichardGibbons]

It is not a no-brainer at all because the Canadian system means garbage for all. I have seen my father treated here and in Florida and the difference is absolutely striking. Now, I know that you seem to disregard personal experience but, to me it counts and what I also hear from many others.

 

"Garbage for all" in the sense that it has the same outcomes as the US system, at lower costs.  You are right that I give very little weight to anecdotes as opposed to scientific studies with data sets that can show significance.

 

That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA. And Canada gets to be a freeloader on US medical R&D.  It's actually awesome for the rest of the world that Americans are happy being grossly overcharged.

 

Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and

doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure.

 

This would actually be interesting to test, because preventative stuff is typically very cost-effective. So, it would be interesting to know if the preventative effect of people going to the doctor "too often" actually saves money.

 

Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world.

 

Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?

 

I actually was curious what the number was here, but couldn't find it in 5 minutes of searching.  Thanks for ruining my browser history.  :)

 

People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.

 

I'd be totally into trying a small fee for service (small relative to the patient's income), to see the impact on both costs and outcomes.

 

And extremely strong unions and terrible hospital administrations who render the system unproductive.

 

Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians.  It's amazing that with all these factors adding inefficiencies, the US system is over 50% less efficient, isn't it?

 

Then other stupidity from the system such as prescription renewals requiring a visit to the doctor and pharmacists who can't do basic/common sense prescriptions.

 

I agree.  I bet this is another "doctor monopoly" thing.

 

So no Canada is not perfect. Very far from it.

 

Yeah, it certainly isn't perfect. It's just far closer to perfect than the American system.

[RichardGibbons]

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

 

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

 

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

 

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

 

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.  When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.

[rb]

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

 

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

 

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

 

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

 

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.  When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.

Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.

[Packer16]

I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

 

Packer

[onyx1]

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

 

Once you accept that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies

 

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.

[DooDiligence]

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

 

Once you understand that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies

 

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.

 

You are a Buddha (that's a complement & not a reference to excessive girth or male pattern baldness...)

 

You're dog looks cool too!

[Rainforesthiker]

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

 

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

 

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

 

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

 

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.  When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.

Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.

 

Perhaps you are referring to my comment.  Some libertarians believe in a small role for the state wrt rule of law, property rights and defense.  Some are more of the anarcho-capitalist mold which believe in a different form of organization than the state based more on private mutual cooperation.  For example, despite my comments above, I think it very possible that a private law enforcement model, paid in the form of insurance premiums, would be better than our current tax / law enforcement from the state.  Also, given the propensity of governments to assume ever greater amounts of power and ultimately start wars or commit genocide, and given my belief in the power and importance of individual liberty, I think in general the less state the better. 

 

Since this is supposed to be an investing forum, this whole thread seems to be a large distraction.  I will say no more on this subject here.  Good luck.

[Cardboard]

"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

 

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

 

"Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians."

 

That is a very good point that I forgot to mention. Actually it applies also to dentists and pharmacists.

 

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

 

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

 

Cardboard

[RichardGibbons]

"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

 

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

 

For the same reason you pay for people who don't exercise enough, eat too much, drive poorly, don't go for periodic preventative check-ups, smoke, drink alcohol or coke, ski, box, canoe, eat bacon, play football, hike, collect garbage, donate blood, work as a nurse, doctor, or other hospital worker, work in mines and other heavy industry....

 

In both the US and Canada, because it is essentially an insurance model, everyone pays for the negative decisions of everyone.  The fact that some people like to have sex with different people get checked for STDs doesn't seem that different than me eating bacon and needing to get cholesterol checked occasionally.

 

Also the bigger issue to me is what that "abuse" costs, and it's a bit silly for us to argue about it without a good understanding of the costs.  My SWAG would that there's about 10 million people between the ages of 20 and 40.  Say 5% of those swap partners a lot, and of those, 10% go to the doctor quarterly to get tested at a cost of $100.  Then the total cost would be $20M, which doesn't seem like that bad a deal.  Isn't a heart attack from eating too much bacon running in the tens of thousands?  You don't need many of those to exceed $20M.  (I imagine AIDS is pretty expensive to treat too, though.)

 

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

 

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

 

They also pay for round-the-clock security for the Prime Minister, because we think it's a good idea to keep him not dead and functioning effectively. If you're going to suggest "not fair" examples, it would be much more persuasive if it weren't the leader of the entire country.  (Like say, his wife and kids, who would also probably jump the queue.  That would be an awesome political controversy.  :) ) 

 

That said, my goal would never be total fairness. Naively striving for absolute fairness is pointless--we need to be practical, not live in fairy tales. My goal is to reduce the effects of luck in life, so the people who work the hardest have the best possible chance to get ahead.

 

[RichardGibbons]

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

 

The interesting thing about IP is that it's a total fiction, a very weak artificial monopoly, and China's really shown that.  I think there's substantial value in protecting IP, but I also think if US went too hard placing a too high a value on  IP during trade negotiations, they'd find everyone abandoning that fiction pretty quickly, resulting in trade wars that would be bad for everyone.

 

Re: "we no longer need allies to fight the communists": Most of the west is allies with US, and therefore they don't need a huge military.  If they are no longer allies, I wouldn't expect them to continue to have a small military, and it would be foolish to expect USA to get better treatment at that point.  It isn't that long since Germany, Italy, and Japan took over much of the world.

 

Encouraging everyone to massively increase their military to sizes where they become a real threat to the USA, and encouraging them to ally instead with Russia and China seems like a really stupid strategy.