The Economy of Risk

The governing elites undermine political issues, because the time is innocent of gender. The reason is social equality and the litmus test is inequality. The message is economies do not work on their own, and neither do governments. The risk social equality will be forgotten and politics remain a holy grail. The social is not a cause, it is a juggernaut and road signs are for the Police.

The solution is economic ethics, and the position is political equality, not the economic variant. The elite is not gender blind, and power a social reason. The internet is the economic tool and not a political example. I suggest writing will become economic satisfaction, meaning status. The ethics are reason and the power equality.

The growth of economic mechanisms is politically driven and the reason investment. Like the pension it is pay as you go. Like monetary union it is equal in class terms to organisation. I threaten social equality in my excuses, and politics is a client political relationship. The government is historical, not an actor and the Internet a role model like Julius Ceasar.

The ethics  are of organisation and equality, rent and plurality not suffering or growth. Nor are human rights, they are divisions of elitism and ethics dispel status. The rights fail to undermine status, and are ways of transposing law. Julius Caesar is a economic idol, not a social animal. He is politically contextualised and functionally inadequate.

Brexit

The power of Europe is its nearness, the threat can be through institutions and the influence can be organisational. I argue Europe can be traditional and economic. The problem is this is integrated and that is economic. I argue Europe will stay with us and other countries stay distant,we have voted for British nationalism.

The government is ideological with Brexit, there are different formulas, nations have protected themselves through Europe and the EU, I suggest there is now more threat without these avenues. The Single Market disablement is the end of globalisation. The future is a British nation and social dislocation based on a national economic model.

The threat is to avoid this reality for all parties and the politics is more openness not less. The threat is policy will retreat and politics radicalise. The system is political and the social idealistic, the government laughing and the authority enhanced. This means the right and enough acceptance for a social dislocation.

The right is disabled by Europe, and the left squeezed by the present. The future is not growth, as Europe is an uncomfortable reality. The economic system is framed by all of this and liberalism is the winner. The evidence is not there that the right have an argument. How much does this matter? Finance and regionalism are at stake, but investment may continue and the city. These statements suggest a continuity and this has messages for the small parties.

The left have miscalculated and the right are raising false hopes. The losers are government identity and the politics will have a foreign flavour. Brexit will recede and the Europeans stay distant. The finance is ideological and the future is identifiable. The system is liberal and financial institutions are identifiable. The politics remains Westminster and the social damaged by ideological risks.

The conclusion is ideological threat are social and economic division is political.  The growth depends on politics, but the mainstream institutions continue in the same direction. The difference is political and the change in employment in quality. The winners are the left and identity restraints are stronger. The economic ones are also.

The persuasion of identity

The difficulty of risk is it constitutes many parts. The political is a constituent structure and the social a response of majoritarian flavour. The cause of a crisis is political and social, a kind of economic tower, surrounded and free. The political is emancipation, the social its response and economically inefficient.

The war in Iraq is a political crisis, and has social origins, economically surrounded its freedom is dependent on America. The communication is responsive, and terrorism is religious and war damaged, the economic is decline and political ideology is enforced, a kind of economic frustration.

The war in Syria has political origins, economic structure and social ideology. International identity is a threat from abroad, and the consequences are political. The comparison is social and economies social and the future is at risk. The social is responsive and the politics is position. A kind of political threat.

The Russian aim is to dominate despite a liberal threat. It has risked its armed forces and its reputation. The difficulty is not Russian and the social a response to economic threats from the liberals. The political a strict discipline to enforce its social identity. The problem is the surrounded and free. I suggest it will not succeed and southern markets will back the west. Publicly the west will fail, and this is already happening.

The solution is a western political victory, not in Russian methods. Peace requires economic support, social mediation and political risk. I argue Syria deserves better. Iraq requires economic investment and Syria western relief. Russia is well motivated, it must spend less and generate more. Economic surplus can create investment created by war and crises can encourage international sponsors and social and economic division, a kind of social identity.

The emancipation of politics is not national, it is social and economic and the international causes crisis. Ideological threats behave differently and the economic is threat. The politics is divisive and the social fragmented. The national of ideology, if the risk is growth means the framework is social. I argue that politics requires a society. and the economy a division. In other words a politics of aid is destructive. The national implications are economic and the political a way of threatening war, the result an integration of ambitions.

Turkey and Russia

The growth of GDP is understandable in political ratios, the political origins of fallen empires are not. The eclipse of Turkisk bureaucracy was fashionably untrammelled and the consequences socially moved. The ratio of dictatorship is socialist, the Russian liberalism philosophical. The political solutions are weak, and economic forecasts low. The ideology nowhere to be seen and the cause the regime itself.

I argue Russian leaderships are against Turkisk development and the political future and economic consequences bleak. The social impact can only improve and the framework an alternative policy to Europe. The southern direction is dependent on a friendly USA and I argue the response from the EU is unhelpful. Russian aims are obvious and strategy liberal, the USA is encouraging southern moves.

The Turks are quiet and the Kurds effective, Russia is seemingly friendly. I argue the society is unrepentant. The socio-political is conservative. The socialist opposition is hierarchical and the economic self-dependent. The point is politics is directed at the people by design, and responses are irrefutable.

The conservative climate in Russia is in this argument and society is economically solved by elites. On the small scale Russia is utopian and institutions socially socialist. The idea then is revolution is unlikely. Turkey then has found its own solution and Russia is using it. The future lies in the EU and Russia has undermined political alignment. The EU has to risk Russian scorn and build the bridge, Liberal systems and economic hardship is social and socialist aspirations popular the strategy must be southern, because the EU has reached its limits.

China resigned

The conference in  China belittled the host nation, the British smiled and were sidelined and  the Americans showed little interest. I argue communications matter less than foundational positions, where does Britain hope to find its trade, and a retreating USA is unlikely to help this China embargo. The conference was spectatcular for  tv watchers, and Li Peng's nervousness was hardly noticed.

America is in one of those depressed moments when home truths matter more than foreign claims and ambitions. The Canadians have a new President and much more to live for than trade with the UK. But trade goes on while the whole world is in recession, when we climb out of it the upturn will overturn leaders and losers.

China is not concerned with local arguments like intra-trade to the US, but Britain's press liked to claim that Chinese workers had a right to work in the UK under national agreements. The conference was billed as an answer to Chinese unemployment in the west, and Russia looked conspiratorial about national aims  and balanced goals. I argue China and Russia have been left out of the Obama years, and only Russia has said something about it.

The American challenge to China is less considered than inopportune. Again it has shown itself to be schizophrenic in its division of aims. Balanced goals it relies on, because of division and decline in the world economy. But the UK lacks any of this credibility, and by leaving the EU has left its trading partners low in strength and aims.

Balanced goals are measured by conflict and surrounding tension. I argue the UK has undermined its national portfolio, but can regain the position. This does not have to be in Europe. The South African economy is strong and stable, so is the Canadian and North African. Its balanced goals can be ignored, but aims like strong trading links come with this cost.

America may regret its role, and change its mind. Europe maay open its targets as UK and non-aligned  countries. Russia may find peace a solution if its route is blocked. These kinds of economic delocalisation is popular here, Euriopean nations are too centralised and we need to find balance in economy, not arms

Political capital

The risk of division is to political threat, terrorism is a reason for unity. Cameron has left political leadership to his enemies and this has consequences. One is the end of support for moderation and the reaction of Corbyn is to lead those forces. The right is becoming a threat to the establishment and the left has become an outlet.

Cameron reinforced the effect of opportunity and the political decline will cover any support for integration. A second referendum is likely to be annulled by economic risk and social damage. If held it will increase the political rift and the question is a plural attempt to undermine democratic forces. The input is the result.

The legitimacy has been undermined by a change of leadership and the risk is political reinforcement of the left. So far personalities have been allowed to overshadow European arguments. The left has undermined political unity. Cameron is supporting this disunity to reinvent his CV. Does the political framework prevent a grab in foreign policy?

The American opponents will not come to our aid, the perception is social and the risk is economic. Does integration matter? The rescue is left leaning and the consequences political and a threat to international unity. At this time the origins of power are social, and economy is ignored. Corbyn may be a winner of this process and Cameron has political capital at stake.

The ignorance question

Trump appears to have let political strategy to take over, and the news from Washington says it has worked. I argue the system is becoming accuse your opponent, not recognise his virtues and debate policy. Certainly both candidates are lacking on this score. I suggest the recent accusation that ignorance counts is below the belt, especially from a black President, because he allows this discussion to escalate to a gender clash and political intrigue. I point out that black and white were his credentials, not yellow and green.

But the debate raises larger issues. The south is Hilary's search for votes and three east more Trump's. I point to the welfare question, and the black disenfranchisement, even the 1960s and how black people were denied the vote. The answer is this dirty contest has been blaimed on Trump, when Hilary has everything to gain from it. The government must be questioning the strategy because the debate is divided and the politics is outside agreements. The President has been drawn in to a discussion he should be involved in, but has less origins of this sort than some of his contemporaries.

The strategy is a double one, both believe in the superiority of the elected and Hilary has been in both black led governments and social issues on the left. Trump has more to offer the black community in the southern areas and is vulnerable on the issue. Hilary is privileged, and Trump is wealthy. The Irish issue has failed to resonate and both camps are divided on the merits of raising left issues and black labels after Obama.

Presidents that are black have a link to Cuban and immigration, Trump is cool on both. Hilary was Secretary of State and claims legitimacy in this area. The division than is about helping candiadtes, should Obama side with Hilary, has global media made a black essential for this politics. A black President has a legacy, and the truth is Trump is on the moral side. The state supports elections that are funded by donors, Trumps wealth is an issue and ignoranace often a solution to giving money to candidates. I argue it is money and back that are fuelling the controversey and Trump has much to gain from it.