The Changing World Order

Before I attempt to answer your question, I have a few of my own (for you)

What specifically makes an "expert" an expert?

Why are you so impressed with college degrees? (Shiny Objects)

Point taken.In my opinion, Conservatives became more conservative. (some argue that liberals became less moderate and more extreme as well. It has been said that liberals define their own words, even while telling me I can't have my own definitions...which is fair, I suppose.We have discussed authoritarianism before.FDR(Democrat) seizes the publics gold, pays them the official value($20.00 an oz)
then raises the price to $35.00 once the government had control of it.
Nixon(Republican) decoupled gold and the dollar, (established at Bretton Woods in 1944)Ford(Republican) reestablished the right for the public to own gold.These days you have ignorant people claiming that the dollar determines the value of gold.
This despite the fact that the government(Fed) "quintupled the money supply" after Covid.
Whom do we blame? Which party? Which "expert"? And why are they experts again?

Apart from Trump and populism, what specifically is bad about the Republican Party of today?

Lets pretend that you are the teacher. The subject is economics and political ideology.Assign me a couple of books that I wont like.Give me some work to do. (although keeping up with the unified peanut gallery can be exhausting! And since this topic is about Ray Dalio and his theories, I'm still puzzled why he is not an expert. He has 17 billion dollars in personal wealth, so I doubt he is selling the book to make money. He gives his information away for free, for crying out loud!Why critique him for founding a successful Hedge Fund? Is it not the job of a Hedge Fund manager to try and spot and analyze trends and to predict where the economy will go next?So you guys cant criticize him for being wealthy.
List Of US Presidents by net worth (in 2022 dollars)And I would argue that he is far from ignorant regarding economics.

​ I thought i used the Dictionary! Well, to be fair I will look up a few more sources. ​ Well I don't care what you think of macaroni either. How do you like them apples? And if the government seized your macaroni, you might then learn what I see authoritarianism as. What if they seized your stored up box of macaroni, offered you 25 cents for it, then raised the official price of macaroni to $1.00?

I knew that.. I expect some will try it again.

When you get their opinions back, please quote them. I dont care about their names or party affiliation. I trust you. If you respect an "expert" I will listen to that "expert".

Commonweal? I assume you mean commonwealth. So what is commonwealth? Imagine a global commonwealth. In my mind, this would equate to a One World Government. At this point in time, I can see no way that such a concept would hold together. After all, if we here in the US have partisan political bickering, how on earth would the added complexities of global governance ever survive in unity?( From now on, I will address the Literalist "dogma" of an Antichrist keeping our secular discussion in mind)
This discussion is mos def *not* about religious dogma or any actual or hypothetical "antichrists" but I will say that if such a character ever sprung up, he would never be a conservative like Trump. He likely would spring from the bowels of the CCP. Anyway, getting back to my main point. If in fact a commonwealth can equate to a common interest, I would argue that the purpose of said government is to protect common interest. It only makes sense that a common trait of a common interest is to protect individual wealth as well as community "wealth". Right? (unless you are a far left Marxist )

I need a bi-partisan government. I need a two-party system. I don't "need" one collective of "we". Why? Because *we* often disagree. I wont simply have a gang of"we" telling me what I must do, in the name of ...well take your pick:
in the name of humanity. (that's a laugh!)
In the name of Jesus.
In the name of Mono-secularism. ((see? I just invented that word... I think. : )We can discuss this rabbit trail more at Message 191

I'm not. Im supporting individualism at *your* expense.I'm in internet school this morning before I take a nap and go to work. I started thinking about the word that sprung up in my head...namely monosecularism.
This led me to Wiki and to this:
Slavic Native Faith's identity and political philosophy
Note the following quotes from the article

wiki:

---

In the Russian intellectual milieu, Slavic Native Faith (Rodnovery) presents itself as a carrier of the political philosophy of nativism/nationalism/populism (narodnichestvo),[1] intrinsically related to the identity of the Slavs and the broader group of populations with Indo-European speaking origins,[2] and intertwined with historiosophical ideas about the past and the future of these populations and their role in eschatology.[3]

​

Rodnovery typically gives preeminence to the rights of the collectivity over the rights of the individual,[6] and Rodnover social values are conservative.[7] Common themes are the opposition to cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and globalization,[8] as well as Americanisation and consumerism.[9]

​

The scholar Kaarina Aitamurto defined Rodnovers' applied political systems as forms of grassroots democracy, or as a samoderzhavie ("self-rule") system, based on the ancient Slavic model of the veche (assembly) of the elders, similar to ancient Greek democracy. They generally propose a political system in which power is entrusted to assemblies of consensually-acknowledged wise men, or to a single wise individual.

---

I will spout propaganda from both sides. You only spout it from one side.

Only if I also get to learn what Capitalism is. Tell that to Henry Ford. His company, Ford Motor Company, helped win World War II. Its a good thing that *we* didn't take Henry's individual wealth and give it to FDR. He did it himself voluntarily. And likely earned a small profit making tanks...or at least broke even. Individual Wealth is good. Don't believe everything you hear. You seem to believe the idea that there *should* be no individual wealth. And then you have the gall to trot out Jesus to support your warped far left Marxist views. Am I wrong?
​

That's what the antichrist will do. He will argue that since Jesus never existed, *we* must all be moral individuals and we *must* support the collective (One World Government)
According to the Bible, He is the bad guy. This whole idea that there is (or should be) no individual wealth and that we would be noble and honorable people if we supported the collective.(The commonwealth). It sounds good in theory but were such a government authoritarian and dictatorial (out of necessity, of course. ) we would have problems.

Interesting. What would you call it? Moderate?

OK. Explain to me how *we* could have achieved and implemented a common good that benefited Americans, Japanese, Germans and Russians all at the same time.

And I might add that a useful rabbit trail would be to discuss individualism vs Collectivism.