Is China really winning big time in the last year or so? Their artificial bubbles are about to burst, and a few of the smaller ones have already done so. Exporters, like mainland China, are racking up deficits too, just not by the same means and not in the same way. China's total debt as a percentage of GDP is something like 268%.¹ I mean there is a credit bubble in China just waiting to burst, and it is going to burst quite massively when it does. Deficits aren't caused by a loss of manufacturering jobs, but principally by overspending on the part of governments, and China's government is as bad as it gets. Also economic independence is a fantasy land in today's world. Too many people benefit from trading with people in other countries. To have economic independence (if a thing ever existed) is silly. It is the concept of state socialists like those found in Cuba, U.S.S.R, North Korea, and Venezuela that a country can have "economic independence." It has no place in a free-market society based on the private ownership of the means of production by individuals and not nation-states.

So what are Trump's solutions to all of this? Probably just as bad as Bernie's: tarriffs and exit taxes. Sorry those are archaic ideas left in the time of mercantilism. If we want to have costs of living go through the roof then we should vote for Trump. Otherwise I don't want to spend more for my clothing, electronics, and home appliances just because a group of people pushed all of their opportunities out of this country by unreasonable wage and benefit demands and now want protectionism to benefit only them. Sorry steel workers and car manufacturers, demanding $70,000 (when adjusted for inflation) salaries in the 1960's and 70's was ridiculous and foolish and they are now paying the consequences for it. Don't make the rest of us pay for their mistakes.

1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/05/09/chinas-total-debt-load-now-over-280-of-gdp/#7fa4c6cc67ab

That's household and corporate debt included with the public debt, right ? Anyways I was talking about exports and China is still very much the winner compared to America owing just about every country ... 

If your sources have taught me anything, most of the deficit is owned by the likes of individuals and corporations and not by governments ... 

Total economic independence is unrealistic at this point but it won't be impossible for highly developed countires to be largely economically independent when automation will come, a huge epiphany is going to strike just about everyone ... 

Tarriffs probably aren't the best thing but sooner or later everyone is going to have to stop overstepping their spending bounds ...

Yes, but China's household debt is very low (Asians like to save.) The central government debt (excluding SOE's) is also relatively low (60% of GDP) but the local governments and state-owned enterprises  have a lot of the debt share there.

Yes, certainly as more things become automated we'll see disruptive changes, but that total automation is still a long way off. People might become economically independent in that circumstance.

I agree 100% about reducing spending. Maybe that is the one consistently good thing about Trump's economic rhetoric. He seems serious about reducing the debt level, but I am unsure what that means with Trump. Too many risks to go along with for that chance(protectionism and his issues with free speech being paramount.) If you've ever watched Milo Yiannopoulos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos ) he is a big Trump supporter who happens to be gay and calls him "daddy." lol Anyway, his theory is that what makes Trump appealing isn't his policies but rather what he represents, a push against cultural progressivism and political correctness, almost symbolically so. For that reason Trump is more of a cultural symbol than a political one.  I think he is quite accurate, as it seems many people who in the past were quite ideologically consistent forgive Trump's flip-flopping with ease, because they like him and what he represents, and how he represents it.

3.  I really don't think it's plausible that BOTH major parties would implode at the same time in the way you're suggesting.  More likely one would go, leaving the other temporarily strengthened by filling some of the power vacuum and one or more third parties growing to real national importance (or a new one springing up) to fill the rest.  Possibly after that shook out the other one might also collapse but I don't see them both collapsing within a decade of each other. 

4.  How does that 11% number compare with similar polls done in the past?  In other words, is this really such a remarkable number of people claiming support for Libertarians or is it "the Ron Paul effect" (vocal minority disproportionately represented by polling method or otherwise evaporating by election day)?  This is an honest question because I don't know. 

5.  I do agree that there are such forces at work influencing the President's policymaking but saying they tend to lean that way once in office doesn't mean they all end up at the same place.  In other words, where they started affects where they end up.  I disagree that Obama and Bush acted in exactly or substantially the same way, while I agree that it was too close to being so. 

6.  I think that local RCV methods being implemented (which they have been in various places) produces public acceptance, and obviously proves its practicality, leading to increased ability to pressure for it at higher levels.  I would love to implement it nationally without having to do a patient bottom-up campaign but I don't see it as a practical possibility.  I would love to see myself proven wrong. 

We don't need to wait for total automation, we only need enough of it so that we can drive import costs down ... 

In fact it has already begun ... 

I agree with you that Donald Trump represents the best parts about the anti-PC movement ... 

I agree that "political correctness" can go too far, but all too often I see the term applied to what might more properly be called "opposition to bigotry".

Call a spade a spade, unless you mean a black person. 

Sander's has not promoted tariffs nor exit taxes. There is more support for free trade on the left than the right of the American political spectrum. Remember most free trade agreements have been passed with bipartisan support. When it comes to specific Sanders proposals on trade he has mostly talked not about raising more barriers but rather negotiating trade deals so that they better protect workers. These trade policies have been shown to increase income inequality by putting downward pressure on the wages of the lower to middle income sectors while putting upward pressure on the highest earners (this is acknowledged by many of the aforementioned policies creators). What you've written already implies you think that this is a natural and inevitable result of trade policy but the reality is that this was a result of the policy design. Trade deals like NAFTA specifically cut out protections for jobs in manufacturing whilst keeping those for higher earning service sectors in place and in some cases strengthening them. The reason you think that those salaries of 70k for manufacturers were unreasonable but today a salary of 240k for a phsycician seems fine is entirely a product of protectionism being allowed to fly by in those trade deals. It's just that the only class being protected are those who already made more money. 

The TPP is an excellent example of this, we often hear about how it will eliminate 18,000 tariffs. Yet it is often unacknolwedged that the US only exports in roughly half those goods and the size of those tariffs are already remarkably small (roughly 1% or less for most of them). At the same time this "free-trade" deal is set to raise copyright and patent measures on pharmaceuticals and intellectual property in massive ways which introduce trade barriers that greatly outweigh the size of the tariffs in terms of their impact. 

But back to what Sanders has actually proposed trade wise: more opening of trade, more reduction of trade barriers, but more protection for lower and middle income workers and less protection for those at the top (in this respect the TPP is better than previous trade deals, but as mentioned above it has other problems, also the I think it was the IMF which found that it would lead to a 0% impact on GDP). He has stated that he would instruct his State dept. to pressure for nations to raise their minimum wages as part of trade deals instead of the opposite (Hillary Clinton famously forced Haiti to slash its minimum wage in half just after it was raised at the behest of multinational corporations who would have had to pay more [.62/hr vs .41/hr]). Sanders has admittedly proposed few concrete measures on trade though, so I don't blame you for not knowing exactly what his stance is. So far he has not supported raising tariffs, he has taken issue with legislation which reduced tariffs but it has always been for reasons that have to do not with lowering tariffs and exit taxes, but with the lack of worker and environmental protections, the skew of protections towards higher-income service jobs, the secrecy of the negotiation process (especially in regards to TPP and TTIP). To quote Sanders himself: 

“Nobody I know believes we should place a wall around this country. Trade is a good thing, but what we must begin doing is negotiating fair trade agreements that reflect the interests of working families in America, working families in other countries, and not just large multinational corporations and the CEOs who help write these trade agreements.”

I hope this quote predates Trump's proposal. 

lol, it does. It was from 2007

This is not the sole reason why physicians make as much as they do. A physician makes more money because: The supply of doctors with respect to their demand is much lower than that of manufacturers. Why? Mostly because becoming a doctor takes at least 8 years of education, and often doctors end up with 100k -200k in student loan debt. Additionally doctors have to pay malpractice fees, and it just isn't easy to become a doctor overall. We know the supply is low because many doctors work 24-48 hours shifts. In order to become a doctor, you need to be intelligent and dedicated to studying, which most people aren't in that way. You also need to do well on tests and maintain an almost perfect GPA in high school, undergraduate, and medical school. Manufacturering jobs on the otherhand can be done by many different types of people, and the cost of entry is low (low enough that employer's train people rather than making them pay for school.) There are fewer regulations on the manufacturers as well, and just fewer natural limitations overall. 

This does not mean that manufacturers don't work as hard, if not harder, than a doctor. Wages are not determined by how hard you work though. I can dig 100 ditches in a day and fill them up. That doesn't mean I should be paid for it. They are determined by the value your work provides others (which is assessed subjectively by them.) While I do agree that some protectionist laws have made it harder for foreign doctors to come to the U.S and compete, I doubt the substantial portion of the $200,000 a physician makes is due to the relatively miniscule supply constraint caused by this. A lot more has to do with the U.S government and private medical licensing authorities requiring much more skill and qualifications from their doctors than those abroad. This is mostly out of fear of law suits, but also because Americans demand it, due to safety. The equivalent scenario in the car industry would be to say that American cars are better than foreign cars, but that is something in dispute. 

As for Bernie not supporting tarriffs, I can see how he doesn't support the large free trade bills that do much more than open markets, but specific bills like the following I really don't understand why he'd oppose.  Also I will admit it was Hillary who supports the exit taxes, and Bernie didn't say he supported them specifically, but I can definitely see him getting behind it from what he said about tax inversion. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.

Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.

and he signed a bill to impose tariffs on countries who manipulate currency, which is practically every country (yes, including the U.S.) 

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.

Sanders signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act

• Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to include as a "countervailable subsidy" requiring action under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding the benefit conferred on merchandise imported into the US from foreign countries with fundamentally undervalued currency.
• Defines "benefit conferred" as the difference between:
  1. the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
  2. the amount of currency such country would have provided if the real effective exchange rate of its currency were not fundamentally undervalued.
• Determines that the currency of a foreign country is fundamentally undervalued if for an 18-month period:
  1. the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
  2. the country's real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
  3. the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account surpluses; and

the country's government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations.

Q: So what does Bernie propose we do?

A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."

Also I find quotes like this quite non-progressive. Bernie is very progressive when it comes to the United States, but he doesn't want people in China to come out of poverty if it means the American domestic largesse can't grow further. That is probably one of greatest things about free trade. It allows people all over the world to become as wealthy as people in the U.S. The other great thing about free-trade is that it creates international peace because the countries have entangled interests. If I attack you, I lose a lot. Sorry, the quotes above are indeed protectionist. I don't see how you can distort that to he supports "free-trade" more than other people in politics on the right.