US presidential election

11/8 – The Tuesday that can change the World

Americans want a change

Average people from almost all latitudeswant a change and they express it by voting. Media campaigns fail to reverse citizen’s decision. The most eloquent example is Brexit followed by the “NO” to the Peace Accord in Colombia.

British citizens decided to leave the European Union due to the endless blunders resolving the economic crisis, whose consequences weigh heavily on their backs, and the migration policy decisions undertaken in Brussels, among other things. The campaign to stay in the UE was impressive and the forecasts facing the exit daunting, nonetheless the citizens were not discouraged and opted to leave the EU. Failure of the “YES” to remain in the EU ended Prime Minister David Cameron’s political career.

Colombian citizens, on their part, said NO to a peace accord with a sector of the guerrilla, which represented their government’s decision, but did not stand for their will as a sovereign people.

Americans are tired of the so called establishment, financial corporations included. Of politicians who’ve been in public governance for years and have not succeeded in reversing the effects of deindustrialization and the migration of factories and companies to cheap labor economies, job losses, and falling living standards.

In this context, Donald Trump should win the election, because his proposal is engaging to the average American, it is what Middle Americans want.

He comes from the private sector, has lost and gained fortunes, was never a public officer and cannot be blamed for management errors or unfulfilled promises.

In the 11/8 election the change is Donald Trump.

On the other hand, his adversary, Hillary Clinton, is the continuation of the current system, inside American borders and on the complex international scene; she has decades as a public servant, both in Congress and in the Obama administration.

Donald Trump proposes to change the global status quo. He bids to protect national industry with larger import taxes, reindustrialize the country, reshoring factories to American soil, create thousands of jobs, modify free trade agreements in benefit of the country and regulate illegal immigration.

Shortly, he says that if American companies insist in offshore manufacturing they must pay very large taxes for their products to enter the United States,by contrast if they reopen their factories on American soil, they will obtain tax benefits.

Which is what the American people want, and it is their vote which rules.

He has other proposals, regarding State defense and security, the Middle Eastern wars and the relationship with other world powers, Russia in particular; although these matters rouse a lot of interest in certain sectors of American society, the economic questions which makeup everyday life and citizen welfare are those which appear determining for the most who endorse his candidacy.

Let’s imagine for an instant that a political candidate from our own country makes us the same proposal, let’s obviously disregard what often happens in many countries around the World where candidates’ proposals are but campaign slogans which are seldom fulfilled, and suppose now that in our country it occurs as in the United States, where winners traditionally thrust their own proposals from the government. Would we vote for him?

Why 11/8 may change the World?

Because the United States sets the course, it still is the World’s most important power center, and is the only economic player which can change the global ground rules. So far it has pushed for unfettered globalization, which has brought us many sorrows and little benefits, and now it can push for change.

The World has been stumbling since 2007, when the toxic assets and European sovereign debts crisis began, and governments can’t seem to find the way out.

The crisis has inflicted devastating consequences on people, many of whom have been left forever excluded from the labor marketand without the means to recover or improve their living conditions.

After almost a decade of measures and counter measures that fail to reverse the appalling consequences for people, they have lost confidence in the political appointees and want a change.

People are fed up with a system which generates recurring crises and whose consequences fall on their backs, on account of decisions they did not take. Global leaders are those take the decisions, all decisions, on commerce, finance and security, but people are those who pay for their blunders; the ruling class doesn’t even suffer them.

Brexit is the most eloquent example: the European Union couldn’t even bail out Greece, and ended up, so far, losing England.

English citizens have tired of bearing the consequences of their political leaders’ and the European Union leaders’ mistakes. They have said enough to a decision making system which affects their lives and their future, and have resolved returning to a system in which they decide the norms and rules which regulate their society.

American citizens, particularly workers, are angry at the system and their vote can make a difference, within their borders and on the international plane as well.

If Donald Trump wins the elections and successfully carries on the American reindustrialization proposals and the modifications on the import tariff regime and the free trade agreements, this inevitably changes the economic and financial international system we know.

For better or for worse?

By this juncture of the unresolved crisis, with stagnated or in recession economies, or feebly growing, keeping the system as it is is irrational. Something has to change, and lacking international consensus change can only originate from a unilateral decision by the United States.

Globalization has increased inequality within and between countries, producedjob losses, decrease in quality of living standards and development; and all of these because of its own dynamics.

If to this we add the perverse effects of the recurring crises, mainly originated by capital market liberalization and free flows of speculative investments, the balance is distinctly negative.

By the onset of the crisis, in 2007, world leaders promised to regulate the international financial system and capital flow. To this date they have not even applied a tax on financial transactions (Tobin Tax).

Meanwhile diverse countries undertook protectionist measures and went searching for alternative markets in bilateral agreements or in new free trade agreements, as the Transpacific, and trade in their own currenciesor currencies others than the dollar. But these initiatives barely aim at sustaining the economies involved.

Eight years after the crisis’ onset, there are no agreed upon measures. Each country is coping as it can and nothing suggests that a sustainable short of middle term growth can be recovered.

Nonetheless, the international leaders that negotiate the rules do not want to change it, they seem to be in wait for “something”, maybe the market forces, or a surprising natural event, to reverse the tendency of stagnation and recession, and return us to the path of development and growth. They wait in vain.

The system will not correctitself, or improve his results. It has to be changed and it is worth reiterating that in lack of a multilateral decision, this change can only stem from a decision from the United States, simply because if the great Northern power negotiates in its own terms, global world rules will change.

11/8 can be the start of such change. The success of the new path is not guaranteed. As in any venue of life, it never is, but it is a chance.


November the 6th 2016

Translation by Daniel Cisneros, translator and member of PoliticaPress Team