First off, say a private prayer of thanks that the core of the current reactionary movement is operating as a scaled up dropship scam. Intellectually and organizationally focused, the end product would rival or even dwarf the great autocracies of the 20th century[1].
As we stand now, the disassembly and selloff of the state (or direct destruction of same) is probably overtaking our ability to act in an expansionist capacity, or even to assemble and coordinate the considerable overhead required of an actual autocracy, that's purely internally.
More pertinent to this subject, the diminishment of the USD is going hand in hand with the oligarch's exchange of assets for slices of the state, which the current executive enjoys quite unabashedly. And obviously the oligarchs feel they are getting fantastic deals, exchanging dissolving assets for monopolies on force, land, and access to state economic resources. But like the liquidation of the USSR by the Soviet security apparatus, tycoon and grifter alike will be more than a little dismayed to see how rapidly both dollars and "state power" lose their sheen when the underlying national context is destroyed.
Particularly since the vaporization of national context is by no means a universal or global phenomenon. I do wonder how well the balkanized techno-feudal dream works when confronted with the reality of, say, China, or even a monolithic domestic block, like the Mormons.
[1] Except today is today, and not the early 20th century. Rather than learning the West's harsh lessons at the hands of B-17s and the Red Army, the United States (and a lot of the northern hemisphere) would learn the same by way of thermonuclear bonfire.
It's usually been 'get elected to the house and make a million on the side, elected to the senate and tens of millions on the side, elected president make a billion'
By 'on the side', I mean things like book deals and at the time legal insider trading. As for making a billion after being elected president in the past it was foundations you've set up and receive donations to, not directly like trump. I think the Clintons were probably the most extreme even taking it I remember a billion dollar donation from Saudi Arabia. But nothing comes even close to trump.
We currently witness Suharto levels of self enrichment.
I don't know if he is daytrading now. Every day in the recent week it was "an Iran deal is imminent" during the day and "we'll bomb them" after market closure, followed by Iranian denials that a deal was ever imminent.
No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal.
The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement.
The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that would stop this.
It has been a tradition that using public office to make money was looked down upon, but it certainly appears that has gone by the wayside.
First off, say a private prayer of thanks that the core of the current reactionary movement is operating as a scaled up dropship scam. Intellectually and organizationally focused, the end product would rival or even dwarf the great autocracies of the 20th century[1].
As we stand now, the disassembly and selloff of the state (or direct destruction of same) is probably overtaking our ability to act in an expansionist capacity, or even to assemble and coordinate the considerable overhead required of an actual autocracy, that's purely internally.
More pertinent to this subject, the diminishment of the USD is going hand in hand with the oligarch's exchange of assets for slices of the state, which the current executive enjoys quite unabashedly. And obviously the oligarchs feel they are getting fantastic deals, exchanging dissolving assets for monopolies on force, land, and access to state economic resources. But like the liquidation of the USSR by the Soviet security apparatus, tycoon and grifter alike will be more than a little dismayed to see how rapidly both dollars and "state power" lose their sheen when the underlying national context is destroyed.
Particularly since the vaporization of national context is by no means a universal or global phenomenon. I do wonder how well the balkanized techno-feudal dream works when confronted with the reality of, say, China, or even a monolithic domestic block, like the Mormons.
[1] Except today is today, and not the early 20th century. Rather than learning the West's harsh lessons at the hands of B-17s and the Red Army, the United States (and a lot of the northern hemisphere) would learn the same by way of thermonuclear bonfire.
It's usually been 'get elected to the house and make a million on the side, elected to the senate and tens of millions on the side, elected president make a billion'
By 'on the side', I mean things like book deals and at the time legal insider trading. As for making a billion after being elected president in the past it was foundations you've set up and receive donations to, not directly like trump. I think the Clintons were probably the most extreme even taking it I remember a billion dollar donation from Saudi Arabia. But nothing comes even close to trump.
We currently witness Suharto levels of self enrichment.
I don't know if he is daytrading now. Every day in the recent week it was "an Iran deal is imminent" during the day and "we'll bomb them" after market closure, followed by Iranian denials that a deal was ever imminent.
Usually not up front.
No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal.
The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement.
The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that would stop this.
Trump is orders of magnitude more financially motivated and self-interested than any other US president in history.