Trump presidency in top ten eiu global risk

Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

100000fireflies
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2016
Age: 118
Posts: 552

19 Mar 2016, 9:39 pm

http://viewswire.eiu.com/index.asp?layo ... 0alerts%22

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747

They rate the probability of him being elected at 21-30%, thus lowering their total risk rating.


"He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea."


"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.
...
"He has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably Nafta, and has repeatedly labelled China as a 'currency manipulator'," the EIU said.
It warned his strong language directed towards Mexico and China in particular "could escalate rapidly into a trade war".
...
" He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil).

"His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East and ban on all Muslim travel to the US would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond," the EIU added.


-----
Negative scenario—Donald Trump wins the US presidential election

Moderate risk; High impact; Risk intensity = 12

A businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican Party primaries, and is the firm favourite to win the Republican nomination for the presidential election in November. Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies—and these tend to be prone to constant revision—but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war—and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond. However, it is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress—albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.


_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"


Last edited by 100000fireflies on 19 Mar 2016, 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

19 Mar 2016, 10:01 pm

You could say there's already a trade war and we're losing.
Do they go into detail about what a trade war would look like?



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

19 Mar 2016, 10:16 pm

Quote:
with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

Haha



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Mar 2016, 10:30 pm

maybe everybody should start minding their business?

Like South China Sea, who cares?



100000fireflies
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2016
Age: 118
Posts: 552

19 Mar 2016, 10:36 pm

slenkar wrote:
You could say there's already a trade war and we're losing.
Do they go into detail about what a trade war would look like?


Not that i can find - other than the tpp being dissolved (at a minimum). A lot of their detailed reports are subscription only, but they also have a ton of reports, so i'm still looking.

As best as i can tell, i get the sense they don't have detailed predictions on that since there haven't been (m)any detailed, set plans from trump.


_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"


100000fireflies
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2016
Age: 118
Posts: 552

19 Mar 2016, 10:42 pm

Jacoby wrote:
maybe everybody should start minding their business?

Like South China Sea, who cares?



We no longer live in isolation. What one country does can have a global impact. Should it be...i don't know. But it's the present reality.


Chinese expansionism prompts a clash of arms in the South China Sea

Low risk; High impact; Risk intensity = 8


Tensions in the South China Sea over disputed islands have escalated in recent years. Since 2014 reports have proliferated about dredging work by Chinese vessels, seemingly focused on turning reefs, atolls and rocks in disputed parts of the South China Sea into artificial islands and, in some instances, military bases. This work has profound territorial implications: according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, uninhabitable rocks have a 12 mile territorial zone, while habitable islands have 12 mile territorial waters and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. In 2015 China's efforts were focused primarily on the Spratly Islands, which comprise 100 small islands and reefs, subject to competing territorial claims from China, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. However, in February 2016 it was revealed that China had also deployed surface-to-air missiles on the Paracel Islands further to the north, prompting an official protest from Vietnam, among others. With China already mired in multiple island disputes elsewhere, including with South Korea and Japan, there is a risk that China's growing assertiveness will lead to a military build-up in the region. This, in turn, would raise the danger of an accident or miscalculation that might lead to a wider military escalation. Any worsening of the row could seriously undermine intra-regional economic ties, and potentially interrupt global trade flows and simultaneously depress global economic sentiment more broadly.


_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Mar 2016, 10:55 pm

So basically opposing TPP and NAFTA is considered a global risk, do you guys agree with that? Trump is less militaristic and more semi-isolationist than the other candidates which is a good thing since jihadi groups don't attack us for any other reason than us sticking their nose in their business, Trump is actually the only Republican that wants to take try to be neutral negotiator between Israel and Palestine not to mention be able to work with Putin.

We can't stop the world from turning, we should focus on making this country great again.



wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 642
Location: Dallas, TX

20 Mar 2016, 12:01 am

Jacoby wrote:
So basically opposing TPP and NAFTA is considered a global risk, do you guys agree with that? Trump is less militaristic and more semi-isolationist than the other candidates which is a good thing since jihadi groups don't attack us for any other reason than us sticking their nose in their business, Trump is actually the only Republican that wants to take try to be neutral negotiator between Israel and Palestine not to mention be able to work with Putin.

We can't stop the world from turning, we should focus on making this country great again.


He wants to put a 45% tariff on goods from Mexico and China, which many economists say would lead to a trade war and possibly a global recession.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

20 Mar 2016, 12:21 am

wowiexist wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
So basically opposing TPP and NAFTA is considered a global risk, do you guys agree with that? Trump is less militaristic and more semi-isolationist than the other candidates which is a good thing since jihadi groups don't attack us for any other reason than us sticking their nose in their business, Trump is actually the only Republican that wants to take try to be neutral negotiator between Israel and Palestine not to mention be able to work with Putin.

We can't stop the world from turning, we should focus on making this country great again.


He wants to put a 45% tariff on goods from Mexico and China, which many economists say would lead to a trade war and possibly a global recession.


Well he didn't propose 45% tariff on Mexico or China; he might say he can to make them do x, y, and z but he's not proposing that. He wants to renegotiate our trade deals essentially and I think it is our right to do that.



100000fireflies
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2016
Age: 118
Posts: 552

20 Mar 2016, 1:08 am

Jacoby wrote:
So basically opposing TPP and NAFTA is considered a global risk, do you guys agree with that?.Trump is..Trump is..


1. This is an international economy report. Of course nafta, tpp, going on about war on china's currency, etc etc matter in the report. As do jihadists.

I agree that trump is a global risk - for far more than economic as listed in the report highlights. And fully agree that he's a walking isis /jihad recruitment video.

I would love to see alternatives to the business as usual, but trump is a disaster on just about every level there is. So, i hold hope that if nothing else, this has been a serious wake-up call and in 4 years, some far better options are presented.


2. Trump says. Trump says trump says. Trump says a massive pile. He writes all about talking s**t in the art of the deal. And his whole campaign has been no different.

His financial reports show he has 3.5 billion, as per trump, he has 10 BILLION (caps are his), reports show a crowd of 6,000, he says there were 20,000. The next interview, he says 30,000. He says he'll be more presidential than anyone..except maybe lincoln. Polls show latinos being rightfully concerned about him, he says "Mexicans love me!". As per him, all the women on the apprentice wanted to sleep with him.

The list could go on for hours. He earns liar and pinnochio awards left and right - way more than any other candidate. And he goes on with circular logic that he said it because it's true. Why is it true? Because he said it. And then followers repeat..it's true.

Even you, on occasion, have noted that it's all theater. They're proclamations from a person who seriously has made near no statement that wasn't incredible hyperbole, flat out lies, amazingly self-aggrandizing, enthymemes, or threats; and when none of the above, brace yourself for whiplash. Visas are bad, visas are good.

At the same time, he's a guy who constantly talks about what a great tough guy he is, but has an obsessive, 3rd grade twitter tantrum when one fox reporter is mean to him. All the while he declares things like generals will listen to him because he said so; utterly clueless of basic things a president should be aware of like the geneva convention and apparently of idea that all prior presidents didn't openly condone torture because they're just wimps.

How can anyone trust any of his international proclamations when he doesn't even know basic international agreements? He undoubtedly has no clue bush 1 already tried building a mexico barrier. And yet, with all of this, simply because -he said- he'll get along with russia, it is gospel truth? What, other than he said, makes this true?

It's not even phrased "Trump seems to have the best chance out of all the current candidates." - it's Trump is, Trump will.. And yet he's already upset Russia (and the uk, and mexico, and china) and isn't even a nominated candidate.


Quote:
Trump is actually the only Republican that wants to take try to be neutral negotiator between Israel and Palestine


How can anyone who is so deeply anti-muslim be remotely neutral in this situation? Again, other than 'trump said...', what gives this concept any validity?


Quote:
since jihadi groups don't attack us for any other reason than us sticking their nose in their business,


What part of killing the families - including innocernt children - of suspected terrorists, doing "pretty severe stuff" to their wives, torturing, and going into syria to take their oil for the US do you think jihadists would find minding our own business?


_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

20 Mar 2016, 3:19 am

Jacoby wrote:
So basically opposing TPP and NAFTA is considered a global risk, do you guys agree with that?

Yes.

Jackson & Nei (2015) wrote:
Abstract

We investigate the role of networks of alliances in preventing (multilateral) interstate wars. We first show that, in the absence of international trade, no network of alliances is peaceful and stable. We then show that international trade induces peaceful and stable networks: Trade increases the density of alliances so that countries are less vulnerable to attack and also reduces countries’ incentives to attack an ally. We present historical data on wars and trade showing that the dramatic drop in interstate wars since 1950 is paralleled by a densification and stabilization of trading relationships and alliances. Based on the model we also examine some specific relationships, finding that countries with high levels of trade with their allies are less likely to be involved in wars with any other countries (including allies and nonallies), and that an increase in trade between two countries correlates with a lower chance that they will go to war with each other.

Source:
Jackson, Matthew O., and Stephen Nei. "Networks of military alliances, wars, and international trade." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.50 (2015): 15277-15284.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15277.abstract

Also, here is some media commentary on the study:
http://www.vitainternational.media/en/a ... t-war/151/
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-partners-wars-nations.html
http://theweek.com/articles/595617/war- ... onal-trade


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

20 Mar 2016, 7:42 am

I oppose NAFTA and TPP, I don't believe these deals have helped us at all while it has made these these other countries have become rich and have all these free things on our dime while America is left to rot. It's our right to renegotiate these deals, Trump is the only candidate these stands for anything different than globalism which has only punished people like me.

He hasn't upset anybody for any real reason, the government of Mexico might not like Trump being elected but I do not decide who I want to be president based on Mexico's self interest but America's. I think the current world order has a lot of blood on its hands and pose a greater danger to the world than Trump. Absolutely I think he is the best of t

It's it a leap of faith supporting any candidate, believing what they say, the other candidates have a lot more reasons to lie.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 878

20 Mar 2016, 8:24 am

Jacoby wrote:
I oppose NAFTA and TPP, I don't believe these deals have helped us at all while it has made these these other countries have become rich and have all these free things on our dime while America is left to rot. It's our right to renegotiate these deals, Trump is the only candidate these stands for anything different than globalism which has only punished people like me.

He hasn't upset anybody for any real reason, the government of Mexico might not like Trump being elected but I do not decide who I want to be president based on Mexico's self interest but America's. I think the current world order has a lot of blood on its hands and pose a greater danger to the world than Trump. Absolutely I think he is the best of t

It's it a leap of faith supporting any candidate, believing what they say, the other candidates have a lot more reasons to lie.


I support NAFTA and the TPP insofar that it preserves diplomatic relations and inhibits conflict. After all, breach and disturbance of trade is certainly a well known source of political conflict, and sometimes, even war.


_________________
Sebastian


Empathy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,548
Location: Sovereign Nation & Commonwealth

24 Jan 2017, 8:33 pm

100000fireflies wrote:

We no longer live in isolation. What one country does can have a global impact.

Chinese expansionism prompts a clash of arms in the South China Sea

Low risk; High impact; Risk intensity = 8


Tensions in the South China Sea over disputed islands have escalated in recent years.
Since 2014 reports have proliferated about dredging work by Chinese vessels, seemingly focused on turning reefs, atolls and rocks in disputed parts of the South China Sea into artificial islands and, in some instances, military bases. This work has profound territorial implications: according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, uninhabitable rocks have a 12 mile territorial zone, while habitable islands have 12 mile territorial waters and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

This, in turn, would raise the danger of an accident or miscalculation that might lead to a wider military escalation. Any worsening of the row could seriously undermine intra-regional economic ties, and potentially interrupt global trade flows and simultaneously depress global economic sentiment more broadly.[/b]


I watched a documentary once on discovering China, it appears that factory owners like to blow alot of smoke into peoples lungs by vaporizing the air and sea with chemical waste and poisonous gases.
If the Chinese government won't do anything in supporting climate change, then the vast smog of corruption exists only to a sub species of ignorant doubters who dwell in the world wondering why the air we breathe can't be more pure, especially on mountainous terrains, and steep valleys. Lets hope someone can bribe a good official with the means in shutting down factoriesthat harm health to a devastating degree. Soon, the impact of what is being done will entice new means of green energy to a dying net growth in China which will make them wake up and smell the pollution before the damage can be any more corrupt.