I thought I would mention that on-line law degrees are well established. One might save some of the costs of residence in a distant state if working on-line from home, while attending law school. So many fields change. One might even imagine a distant future where 3D printing locally replaces select foreign imported consumer goods. Concord Law School Global Expert systems programs for legal training may evolve to bring down the cost of legal education leading to passing a state bar exam. Legal trainees may be able to learn and try to pass law exams at home before taking the official test in order to learn where they need to strengthen upan reinforce weak areas. One should someday be able to purchase a complete, quality law degree training course for five easy payments of $19.95. Presently even on-line degrees may cost tens of thousands of dollars.
My
opinion about the global economy is that it will change rather than
collapse. A philosophical paradigm for economics would be a better
criterion for speculating about global economics for me since I am
not an economist.
A
Petri dish with a growth medium given bacteria tends to grow its
economy of being until it consumes all the resources before collapse.
Some politicians have more intelligence than some bacteria so one
might expect them to have a political economic management style that
is more thoughtful of the limits to certain kinds of growth.
For
human economics there are extraneous factors that affect policy and
practice not within the political control of a sovereign nation. That
might be foreign invasion or foreign dumping of product, collapse of
foreign sourced materials, competition and so forth. In a global
economy there are several economic regulatory agencies with varying
degrees of efficiency or lack of. That was a fundamental point I
wanted to make concerning management of global economics through
regulation rather than exhaustion of resources; regulation that is
counterproductive, countercyclical or ineffective may be a cause or
stimulus for economic well-being or failure. If regulations lead to
economic collapse then reform of economic regulation follows. And if
economics falter under the existing state of regulation then the
regulations tend to be modified.
Economic
cycles have certain courses that occur in relation to growth. Thomas
Piketty wrote about the history of those in the well worth reading
book Capital in the Twenty First Century. Sometimes economic managers
aren’t aware of historical economic relationships perhaps and work
against them, as if one was trying to build a sand castle near the
water’s edge on an incoming rather than an outgoing tide.
Sometimes
economic managers of regulation need to look ahead, such as building
a moon base for advanced materials and technical research and support
for commercial activity, yet the future isn’t a panacea for present
deficiencies in economic method- only a vector of opportunity. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47638586
Stalin was a sub-optimal military leader and the Soviet dictatorship was cold-blooded in war. If Stalin had not made an agreement with Hitler to take Finland in exchange for neutrality it is possible Hitler might not have started the war. As it was Hitler invaded Poland and so did Stalin in 1939. Then the Soviets captured Finland in the winter war. When the two serpents turned upon one another, the Hitler-Stalin agreement was terminated. War in Leningrad was to develop in 1941-42, by which time Field Marshall Rommel and his Panzer edge was being blunted by the British at El Alemein
If 70% of the storm troopers were not former socialists that believed that Hitler would purge the aristocracy if in power, Hitler might not have taken power in Germany and the war might not have occurred. As it was Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan. The United States had to fight a world war on two broad fronts it didn’t want.
The United States had kept England in the fight after western Europe was lost with lend lease and other material support until entering the war itself. Stalin had purged his military of high ranking officers in his paranoia before the war. The Red Army was in a less than optimal condition when Operation Barbarossa was launched upon the Soviet Union.
Hitler had some allies in the Ukraine as well as in other Eastern European nations who would act as fifth columnists in the fight against the Soviets. Eisenhower wanted to directly invade France to attack, yet Roosevelt forestalled that. Rommel and the Panzers in North Africa needed to be addressed. When the Brits and Americans wound up the Wehrmacht, Italy was an obvious place to flow the war. A general pincers attack on two European fronts along with Soviets engaging in a third on the east presented tactical complications for the former corporal.
Britain was able to supply the Soviets with about 700 tanks in 1941 and together with the U.S.A., about 5000 tanks in 1942. During the entire war the Soviet produced about 350,000 wheeled vehicles while the United States supplied more than 500,000. The U.S.A. provided most of the armored troop vehicles the Soviets had for they produced none during the war. U.S. and Britain built 40% of the Soviet Air Force.
There is no question about the value of the Soviet war contribution to defeating Germany and the axis powers. Most Americans do not learn Soviet history- just western history, and learn of their own national contribution in that regard. The allies were a team, rather like the super band Cream that played together for just two years, that accomplished a lot working together.
Questions like; Could the Soviet Union have survived the Nazi invasion if the other allies had not been in the war?, or Could the allies have won the war without Soviet participation? are interesting, yet unrealistic historical speculation or war gaming practice for war theorists. Stalin was about as lethal to Soviet subjects before the war as Hitler was during the war. The kulakization policy alone killed I believe, twenty million people. Red Army soldiers fought well, yet the peasant soldier sleeping on the frozen ground in a greatcoat was a tradition reaching far, far back in Russian history under the Tsars. They were badly used during the Second World War by the communists.
President Obama stimulated wars across North Africa and the Middle East. The Syrian war was easily avoidable yet he kept puffing it up with support for revolutionary-guerrilla terrorists that led to more than a million casualties. He ordered a U.S. war on Libya that made room for Al Qaeda and Isis in the wake. President Obama drove relations with Russia downward to the realm of a new Cold War. His policies were aggressive in support of Europe’s will to annex as much of the former Soviet Union lands as possible, and to create more sales for the defense establishment. Conflict in the Ukraine grew as a possibility. He supplied weapons and intelligence to a region that could have been peacefully joined in prosperous, amicable relations. President Obama made the Bush II tax cuts permanent when all he needed to do was to let them expire. The tax cuts for the most rich enabled a globe of investments for the 1%ers and Chinese partners too. President Trump has yet to start a foreign war, increased taxes only moderately (they were already too low), has added just a trillion and a half to the public debt (it should have decreased yet the increase was modest compared to President Obama’s. President Obama traveled to more foreign countries than President Trump. President Trump has sought to normalize relations with the difficult communist leadership of North Korea. President Obama signed foreign accords such as that of Paris on global warming remediation, while President Trump has not (he should have unilaterally surpassed the Paris accords with innovation).
In my opinion President Obama was far more aggressive.
A quantitative analysis and comparison of the numbers of terrorist incidents around the world on a racial basis would have non-whites- mostly Muslims, winning by miles and miles. The United States has fewer Muslim terrorists than it would if it had not spent billions and billions on Homeland Security. That obnoxious airport screening if removed would perhaps allow an airliner to be blow up at least annually if not more often over American skies. The corporatist media finds white nationalists are the problem though. https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
I
don't like the term white nationalism that is popular in the
corporate media, pejoratively. There are numerous derivative and
collateral connotations associated with it as well as assumptions of
what remedies and courses for it are. One must also stipulate that it
exists as an actual problem or thing for-itself rather than as a
fictitious media creation for political and demographic sales
purposes.
The
term in the United States flows from a continuum of pejorative ideas
from the old south before the elimination of convict labor rentals to
companies and Jim Crow segregation. With the liberation of non-whites
and other poor from the old style exploitation the concept of legal
compensation appeared as well as affirmative action politics to
compensate those exploited previously. All white culture was regarded
as an oppressive class instead of just whites of the old south. All
male whites except for the most queer liberals were lumped into the
class of oppressors by their opponents. Empirically women boosted
themselves up and joined with the progeny of former slaves, children
of illegal immigrants and Asians in Affirmative Action and a slew of
litigation that compelled equal pay for equal government work.
Eventually
straight white males were regarded as being an undeserving insider class of inherited privileges oppressive to affirmative action classes. Support for illegal immigration and any
policies that downgraded straight white males so they would be
nothing more than proles among equals was accepted as right and
proper politics for the left. The grave ecospheric threats that
presented including global warming were regarded as arising and
continuing because of white corporate activities and culture. The
party line went that if women and former minorities were in charge,
even with socialism, the result would be a swift return to a decent
world where exploitation was gone and nationalism no longer let males
wage battles for resources and power over women and non-whites
everywhere. Some
extremist white males were traditionalists regarding history and
viewed racial life as competition. Such competition has existed for
the entire history of human culture and isn't appropriate for
addressing the ecospheric challenges facing all humans on Earth.
There are of course additional elements that drive societies, races,
cultures and imperial aristocrats to battle or subjugate others that
are not gone from the world, even nearly. It is ironic that godless
evolutionists only that cannot comprehend how theology could
incorporate modern physical cosmology tend to divide society and
support wars for religious reasons themselves even from within an
antipathetic role. Another
irony is purely biological as those passing on just x genes in the
U.S.A. are working to exterminate European-American y gene culture. Y
genes do not pass on through women. Historically flooding a land area
with external, non original cultural y genes has driven out or
exterminated the native y gene culture. Recently
a scientific study found that the y gene culture of Iberia in 4500
b.c.- dark haired and blue-eyed farmers, was extirpated over time by
an influx of Eastern Europeans. While the female x gene culture could
pass on, it was the foreign origin male y gene culture that replaced
the former y gene culture that was more native. A similar process is
slowly occurring in the United States, and resistance to y gene
cultural genocide is a legitimate basis for white nationalism to
exist (besides the reasonable desire to keep the founding culture
alive so far a possible). What
kept the aboriginal American y gene culture from being entirely
exterminated was segregation on reservations. Cultural segregation is
requisite for viable continuity of minority y gene culture amidst a
very large majority.
The
issue of if a racial group of y genes is better than another, or even
significantly different, is far beyond by knowledge. It is
unfortunate that such issues arise at a time in history when every
culture should be doing better where it is to conserve ecospheric
resources and ecospheric health while advancing the quality of human
life and the technology. Those are challenges that cannot be well
addressed by a drunken like mad bull forward rush by men or women of
any culture, as they seek to overcome and dominate any polity where
they happened to be. Exploitation is bad for humanity in all its
forms.
Nations
also support political diversity and experimentation that does not exist
in one with a solitary world government. Competition is generally
good and productive more so than a large village commune under one
dictatorship might allow. White culture in the United States has had
some strong points in that it supported liberation of oppressed
people it regarded as equal. All men are created equal was a basic
political idea regarding worth. That idea is not present invariably
in white nationalist approaches. White nationalism also creates fear
of immoral forms of white assertion such as that of Nazi Germany, and
those are reasonable though not well measured fears today. Those
fears tend to drive proletariats in U.S. politics toward
extermination of white culture, and white y gene culture, that
created the concepts that were presented and actualized during the
foundation of the United States.
The
strong points of white y gene culture might be science and
technology, Christianity and constitutional principles of equality of
human worth as individuals. Some of those points are absent from
racist y gene culture and non-white y gene and xx cultures. The drive
to eliminate any genetic culture isn’t in keeping with the strong
points of white y gene culture. A greater irony is that the most
strong element- Christian faith, is a gift from God to all people
equally.
Complicating
the issue are underlying extra motivations by numerous actors to
degrade the United States intentionally and unintentionally.
Corporations for one, seek more market share and product sales, so
expanding sales and consumerism to non-white cultures was a practice
of white owned and led corporations. Corporations are also usually
protrans-nationalism and work too degrade national sovereignty and
political power everywhere. Ads on television are leading agents of
social change with interracial couples and homosexuals being placed
or featured these days. As in the slavery era of the antebellum
south, individuals pursue their own immediate, narrow economic
interests before those of culture. Corporations, slavers, political
leaders and the most rich still tend to pursue their own immediate
self interests and regard cultural issues as externalities. Nationalism is being morphed by the 1% super rich owned media to equate to white nationalism and thus terrorism. One media writer seemed to think the President of the United States should work to get rid of nationalism. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/17/opinions/presidential-weekly-briefing-nationalism-donald-trump-vinograd/index.html
That would be too convenient for global corporatism, communism and misc. totalitarians.
