FAILING TO SEE ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW

Expanding one’s news gathering sources is never easy. I have to confess that I probably rely on the Guardian Newspaper and the BBC for overall information. I do watch a lot of YouTube stuff such as Occupy Democrats, Brian Tyler Cohen, Meidas Touch, Rachel Maddow, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Late Night with Seth Meyers and other podcasts critical of Mr Trump’s Presidency. I believe that most of these Pod casts come up first when I log in because of google statistics on what I regularly watch. I am sure that if my obsessions were aligned with Fox News and friends, they would be the first to appear on screen. In that sense, it is clear that whatever algorithm monitors my access to the internet, it will continue to provide me with material it believes I would seek out in any event.  It learns to feed me the food I seem to like. This is not good for diversity of thinking. It tends to narrow an already narrow point of view. 

Celia brought in the Saturday edition of The Financial Times, offering another perspective, and one that should be taken into account. In its wikipedia entry it states “Since the late 20th century, its typical depth of coverage has linked the paper with a white-collar, educated, and financially literate readership. Because of this tendency, the FT has traditionally been regarded as a centrist to centre-right liberal, neo-liberal and conservative liberal newspaper. So perhaps not so far removed from The Guardian. In any event I perused the paper.

Trump touted Chinese troops for Kyiv. Donald Trump suggested deploying Chinese troops as peacekeepers in post war Ukraine leading support to a proposal first put forward by Russia’s Vladimir Putin, according to four people briefed on discussions.

EU antitrust chief urges defiance of US - The EU must be prepared to walk away from a trade deal with the US if Donald Trump acts on his threats  to target the bloc unless it alters down its digital legislation.

Cook’s showdown with Trump likely to have broad implications for Fed - Central Bank economist’s defiance against removal threat is no surprise to those who know her. Lisa cook, the first black woman to serve as a Federal Reserve governor, is used to a fight. She has the scars on her eyebrow and leg to prove it.

White House removes secret service protection for Harris.

These are just four headline stories from pages 4 and 5 of the Financial Times Weekend section of the 30th August 2025. They represent the gullibility, stupidity, bullying, pettiness and general cupidity of Donald Trump. Three of which traits - bullying, pettiness and cupidity - he shares with Vladimir Putin. This is not a very different approach to stories emanating from the United States, in relation to its President, taken by quite a number of newspapers around the world. Although the articles do not specifically state that Trump is a stupid gullible petty bully, it is how, from my narrow point of view, I chose to interpret the articles.  How much further afield must I go in order to develop a more equitable and considered point of view? I am clearly in a rut.

There is however a lengthy article about Trump’s interventions in the US financial system and in leading companies. He has apparently received little pushback and the article’s title is A calculated silence. Not being an economist or having any real understanding of financial systems or the ‘market’, I am not in a position to comment with any authority, but a couple of paragraphs in the piece caught my attention.

Joel Griffith, a senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, wrote on X that the “partial nationalisation of Intel reflects disturbing reality: economic policy is increasingly a mix of ‘internationalist’ socialism on the Left and ‘nationalist’ socialism on the so called ‘New Right’.”

Ilya Somin, the law professor at George Mason, says that Trump has moved the Republican Party from being a relatively conservative, generally free market party, to be more like a European rightwing nationalist party that supports big government.
“Nationalist have a long history of these sorts of interventionist policies that have a lot in common with sort of leftwing socialist policies” he says.

An interesting equation of x=y seems to be the formula; but, whilst the article indicates that most American business leaders claim that “the independence of the Fed is absolutely critical” and “playing around with the Fed can often have adverse consequences”, the big beautiful tax breaks have made their own financial position far more secure, and therefor richer, and so self interest keeps their mouths shut, hence the title A calculated silence.

Like Trump, they couldn't care less about what they leave behind them. The collective short term hedonism of this mob is typical as well as despicable. Trump’s interventions in all areas are already having adverse consequences, but it appears that for a few dollars more, the billionaires of the United Takes of America will stay silent and not intervene in his interventions.