So, I'm halfway through Question Time and I thought that this was a good point:

Will the world become a more dangerous place when Trump becomes the 45th President? - asked by a member of the audience.

Lionel Shriver, American journalist and author: Yeh, probably. I'm less concerned about what Trump does domestically, because that can often be redressed in another administration. But I am most worried about his foreign policy.

I think that he's poorly educated about the world, and that he's not calculated enough. People are always making so much of his business experience, and that he's a great negotiator, but I don't see that.

So far, in what he's said in relation to other countries... that kind of calculation... I mean, the "One China" policy is a good example. You know, it is a dumb policy. Taiwan is a separate country, it's a democracy - don't tell the Chinese. And China doesn't control it, and the U.S. supports it with a lot of arms. That's the reality.

But the U.S. goes along with the Chinese delusion that it's still part of China. Well, you know what, going along with that delusion doesn't cost us anything. So, ah, okay, it's a little annoying to have to defy reality like that, and to pander to someone's vanity. But if you're going to stand up to someone and say "We're going to call your bluff, there actually are two China's", you have to get something out of it. And the only thing that the U.S. would get out of it is trouble.

So you keep your mouth shut. And you go along with it. That's the kind of calculation that a president needs to make. And I'm worried he's not capable of it.

And stuff with China - this is not funny. You don't want to offend their pride. It's pointless.

I think he will not look at warfare as a good deal. I think he will look upon it as a massive drain on America's resources. — Piers Morgan (journalist, television host, friend of Trump)

I hope so.

I don't think he will be declaring war, in the way that Hilary Clinton might have done, because she was one of the great hawks of modern times in America. — Piers Morgan

Hmm... might have done. But doubtful, to say the least.

Things could be okay if Trump channels his narcissism into actually being effective.

A president who will not consider warfare is seen as weak. Russians already see this and they will take advantage.

Things could be okay if Trump channels his narcissism into actually being effective. — Heister Eggcart

But is he even capable of being effective in terms of foreign policy? Lionel Shriver has her doubts, as do I. Maybe effective, but maybe in the wrong way.

It's hard to judge foreign policy in the moment, so unless it's an obvious blunder..?

A president who will not consider warfare is seen as weak. Russians already see this and they will take advantage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk is another. The latter is by far the most concerning.

Well, talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk is another. The latter is by far the most concerning. — Sapientia

You mean Trump actually getting involved in war? That's really scary, isn't it? The guy can't even hold his tongue, I'd hate to see his finger on the trigger.

It's hard to judge foreign policy in the moment, so unless it's an obvious blunder..? — Heister Eggcart

China's reaction regarding, for example, Trump's comments and actions regarding the "One China" policy is actually very predictable. Not what they'll do exactly, but how they'll take it. He's knowingly fucking with them, and that will likely have consequences.

You mean Trump actually getting involved in war? That's really scary, isn't it? The guy can't even hold his tongue, I'd hate to see his finger on the trigger. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeh, I know. I feel the same way. I think that Hilary Clinton was right to attack Trump by focussing on his temperament. Someone with that temperament shouldn't be trusted in the role of president of the United States.

Trump has a foreign policy? News to me.

Trump has a foreign policy? News to me. — Thorongil

What do you mean by that? He has at the least made pretty clear what some of his intentions are. And he has already made comments and taken actions which have effected and/or will effect foreign relations. That's what is being referred to, I think.

Emily Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Secretary and Labour MP): I hope what Donald Trump has said isn't necessarily the person that he is. I think that if it's right that he isn't going to trample all over the Paris climate change agreement, then I'm pleased. If he's not going to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, and wreck the two-state solution, then I will be very happy. If he's not going to try to undermine the Iranian nuclear deal, then again, I will be very encouraged, and I will judge him by his actions, and not just by what he says.

The difficulty is, if you look at the people he has appointed, that seems to underline the things he has been saying.

Responding to a point by Piers Morgan:

But when he [Piers Morgan] talks about his journalistic integrity, Donald Trump did not say that NATO had an obsolete structure, he said it was obsolete. Now, our defence is based on NATO, and our agreements with America and the other states of Europe. And we need to have NATO, and an American president who understands... [interrupted] ...So what we need to do... [interrupted]

And what we have to do, I think, as Britain - we are America's closest and longest standing friend; we are actually in a position of some power and some authority and influence - and I think that we need a Prime Minister who is prepared to say, when it is necessary, "No, Mr. President, that's wrong".

Aaaaaand the Conservative MP on the panel, Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling (who recently knocked a cyclist off of his bike by carelessly opening his car door to get out and walk rather than wait in traffic, and then later caused yet more controversy by claiming that cyclists don't count as road users), wasn't critical at all, speaking well of Trump's appointments, saying that he thinks we should be optimistic, and that he doesn't think that the world is going to be a more dangerous place with Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.

Alistair Carmichael MP, Former Scottish Secretary, Liberal Democrats: Well, I think it's a more worrying place, at least. And from our point of view, the thing that concerns me is I think the government's nose is out of joint, 'cause you see that Nigel Farage has been in there, they've got some catching up to do.

Donald Trump has said that he is going to reinstate the American torture programme. Now, we in this country have historically shared intelligence with America. We do not share intelligence with countries who use torture.

David Dimbleby, Chair of Question Time: I think his Attorney General said he wouldn't allow that to happen. I think in the hearings they made it clear that wouldn't happen.

Alistair Carmichael MP: You have to hope so, because just this week...

David Dimbleby: Well you don't have to hope so because the people he's appointed are on record saying they're not going to do it.

Alistair Carmichael MP: ...in the Supreme Court, we had a judgement... where in fact MI5 agents in this case were complicit with American rendition of dissidence to Libya. That is the sort of thing that can happen when the special relationship goes wrong, and that's why... [interrupted] ...But we've been here before, David. That is the point.

Four Disclaimers:

a) I did not vote for Trump. b) Trump is certainly not stupid. c) Trump is certainly not learnéd. d) Trump is not a nice man.

Wide and varied learning (not necessarily very deep) is a prerequisite for an able president, in both foreign and domestic policy. Trump probably did not leave Fordham and Wharton School (U-Penn) with a lot of knowledge. Few people learn vast amounts in their undergraduate education. Wide and varied knowledge comes from a lifetime of reading, listening, experience, and thoughtful discussion. Trump didn't pursue that course (just as many other people do not.)

His personal narcissism is paired with a national narcissism which he shares with substantial parts of the Republican Party. Or, maybe the whole Party has national narcissism -- not quite sure. The willingness to use Taiwan to poke China in the eye is a good example. It overlooks the changes that have occurred in the world since the USA was the undisputed military and economic power. The idea that Mexico would pay for our wall against their citizens was ludicrously self involved. Moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (something that none of our allies (nor most enemies) have done is insensitive, shall we say. It might feel good now, but it is going to make Mideast policy more difficult to execute (unless the policy is Armageddon). Vladdy Putin may be Trump's kind of guy, but Putin is not a bosom buddy of the United States.

Trump's ranting (by himself and through his press secretary) over the Media's cruel and unusual claim that his inaugural attendance wasn't as large as Obama's first inauguration is simply pathetic--and disturbing. The press secretary denounced "media lies" at the CIA building in front of a wall inscribed with "You will know the truth and the truth will make you free." Apparently the writing on the wall had no effect. (It is perfectly obvious from aerial photos that Obama's first inaugural crowd was bigger--but who's counting?)

Trump is entitled to his own opinions; he isn't entitled to his own facts.

A man who (apparently) doesn't know much about American and world history is going to blunder more than most. A man who is too internally driven isn't going to listen to warnings from his intelligence agencies, congressional leaders, think tanks, or anybody else. He's cruising for a bruising.

Brilliant point by a member of the audience!

I've just heard Piers describe Donald Trump as a smart businessman. Well, we have seen in this country a smart businessman who is now out on his yacht leaving the BHS workers without a job or a pension. So sometimes, smart businessmen can leave a trail of destruction.

[Applause from the audience]

The next audience member says that we should give him a chance, and only one or two people from the audience clap.

Trump's foreign policy is difficult to see. He is putting it all together as he goes along. But he seems too focussed on what he thinks is fair trade. He wants to negotiate deals: that's what he does, and that is what he has always done.

Mexico, his concern is with illegal immigrants and much how US corporations have found it to be a lower cost alternative to operation in the US. It remains to be seen what kind of relationship he will have with Trudeau, a liberal but perhaps Trump's kind of liberal. In any case he wants out of NAFTA.

He withdrew from TPP agreement today. He wants to negotiate. His dance with China ought to be one of the more entertaining aspects of the next 4 years. Trump has the upper hand, US GDP 18 Trillion versus China 11 Trillion. (2016 estimated)

He also has upper hand in regards to EU with 17 Trillion dollar GDP (2016) and with the loss of UK, now 14.4 Trillion. Trump needs May as much as May needs Trump.

Trump is the first US President I can recall that has put the US's Economic strength out there as the primary thrust of foreign policy. The US has always paid & played its part in world affairs, which has ended up with many countries supporting US policies. Trump's unwillingness to pay for more than what he thinks is the USA's fair share may ruffle some old allies.

Who knows with Russia? Trump and Putin seem cut from similar cloth and both seems to have similar lack of regard for NATO. Trump because USA pays around 75% of its cost, Russia for security reasons.

Mideast, he and Bebi seem to get along well, and we know that he likes Erdogan. I don't really think he has expressed much about the other Arab nations, beyond his claim that he will wipe out ISIS.

Of course Nigel Farage, Trump's unofficial European policy adviser ought to provide Trump with some interesting ideas. :)

Trump has been President for only a few hours, so, yeah, it's a bit hard to fully assess. My guess is that it will be less drastic than GW's and more competent than Obama's. My take on Trump is that he's a non-ideological pragmatist without any party allegiance who doubtfully cares about re-election. So, let's sit back and see what he independently decides.

So what do you think is the "pragmatic" advantage to increasing tension with China? Are you sure it's not ideological? Perhaps having to do with, say, nationalism or isolationism? Will he get better deals or improve relations by pissing them off?

When I went to Morocco, I was a great negotiator. I always started by insulting the seller's national values, and I always ended up with a great bargain where I paid three times as much. That is, if I wasn't thrown out.

One interesting thing to see is whether there will be any measurable effect on economic growth in the USA, due to his retreat from ttp, possibly nafta and ttip. This has always been gospel for capitalists but the benefits for society at large often disputed. Historically, a lot of dominant market players got a head start because of some form of protectionism. Once mature, they could compete internationally. Only mature market participants can benefit from these trade agreements, which is why less developed nations aren't catching up with the rest, despite these "beneficial" trade agreements.

Repealing these trade agreements might not be a bad thing per se.

The only one I know much about is TTIP, and I've been strongly opposed to it. I signed quite a few petitions against it.

So what do you think is the "pragmatic" advantage to increasing tension with China? Are you sure it's not ideological? Perhaps having to do with, say, nationalism or isolationism? Will he get better deals or improve relations by pissing them off? — Sapientia

When you ask if it's ideological, I'd take that to ask if he thinks there is something per se unacceptable about China that makes him want to distance himself from them. I don't think it's that at all. I think he sees China as taking American jobs because it can produce consumer goods more cheaply than American workers can due to an unlevel playing field, like lower mandated worker wages, lower safety and environmental regulations, and currency manipulation. If you're working out a deal and one side is heavily regulated but the other can do whatever it wants, then I'd say it's a bad deal. I do think that Trump would deal with the devil if he thought he could benefit, which is what I mean when I say it's not ideological.

When I went to Morocco, I was a great negotiator. I always started by insulting the seller's national values, and I always ended up with a great bargain where I paid three times as much. That is, if I wasn't thrown out. — Sapientia

I don't know what I am to infer from your bad behavior other than to admit that if you believe its Trump's objective just to piss off the Chinese and nothing else, then that's a bad idea. The truth is, though, that the Chinese are some bad actors and they're getting away with things they shouldn't be. I don't see a problem with calling them down on that and letting them worry about the repercussions of pissing off the US. Unlike little old you wreaking havoc in the old world bazaar where they can toss you out, China can hardly toss the US out of its markets without suffering serious consequences. That is, the US, unlike you, has leverage.

While 'free trade' would seem to be a good thing for everybody, it seems to be a good thing for some and a bad thing for others. Moving manufacturing to Mexico, for instance, is a benefit to Mexican workers, American corporations, maybe American-workers-as-consumers (in the short run), but not to American workers in the short or long run.

A Ford produced in the US keeps all of its economic multiplier-effect here. Parts suppliers for the assembly lines generate more multiplier effect here. American workers benefit, corporations earn smaller profit, consumers might pay more for the car, but if the American economy is more robust, they can afford to.

The same goes for a long list of products. [Benkei knows all this, of course. Some others, maybe not.]

On the other hand, a fortress economic approach isn't workable either. If we don't buy on the world market, we can hardly expect to sell, either. But the trade deals tend to favor (strongly) those in a position to profit--the familiar top 1% - to 5% of the population.

It should (imho) come down to devising policies that benefit the greatest number of citizens, not the wealthiest citizens.

Moving manufacturing to Mexico, for instance, is a benefit to Mexican workers, — Bitter Crank

In the short term only. Note that it's easier to establish/move a company abroad than it is to emigrate. All workers have become temps.

So we will welcome Saudi Aramco with a nice tax deal but not Arabic people. The latter we will begrudgingly accept only if they can prove they're fugitives but not until after about 2 years of procedures.

We live in a world where we're happy to help corporations. People? Not so much.

All workers have become temps. — Benkei

People? Not so much. — Benkei

The other day I picked up Air Conditioned Nightmare by Henry Miller (author of Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Sexus, etc.) which is based on his 1939 trip across the US. For the previous 10 years, he had been living in the Parisian hothouse of expatriate artists and writers. The first chapter, Good News! God is Love! is a rant set off by the contrast of witnessing the brutality of Pittsburgh and having just finished a biography of Ramakrishna.

The theme of revulsion at the dehumanization of 1939 Great Depression America is still going strong in subsequent chapters. I don't know whether his scathing prose does justice to his reaction to the barbarism he sees. The oppression of the ordinary man by the rich was less disguised then than now--maybe.

Anyway, his ranting is fresh and alive. Ruthless exploitation, dehumanization, oppression, brutality, and so on are very much with us. Maybe it is not quite as grim--2017 compared to 1939. Or, maybe I would need a decade of pleasant exile to see it anew. It wasn't just poverty. It was the crude, barely concealed violence that he encountered in specific people.

"All workers have become temps" is literally true for a large share of the workforce. They may not be called temps, but they are. One difference between 1939 and 2017 is that immiseration is perhaps a slower process for the working class, certainly--but middle class too. I takes a while to strip a family of all assets, all resources, all the compromises and adjustments they can make before they are literally broke and broken. (Just like in 1929 - 1939, not everyone was thrown out on the street. 3/4 of the workforce was then working; it's probably about the same now--if you go by the real unemployment and seriously under-employed/part-time rates.

More on this topic, courtesy of This Week:

The problem is Donald Trump doesn't know what he thinks. One day, he was making a phone call to the president of Taiwan, saying "I reject the One-China policy that's been the basis since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger started relations with China". And the Chinese did what they always do and say "Oh, if that's your position, we don't really want to talk to you". And so Donald Trump capitulated, and he had to agree to the One-China policy before the president of China would even get on the phone with him. This is amateur hour in the extreme, and you can find all the silver linings you want, but when an amateur takes over in the Whitehouse, at a time when American leadership is so important, after eight years of going one way, and eight years of going the other, it's a real danger for the world. That's what I'm worried about: amateur hour at the Whitehouse. — James Rubin

I think he will not look at warfare as a good deal. I think he will look upon it as a massive drain on America's resources. — Piers Morgan (journalist, television host, friend of Trump)

Isn't the money spent on the military already a massive drain on America's resources? And Trump has just recently declared what he has called a "historic" increase in military spending, which has come under fire from Democratic lawmakers, who have said that cuts being proposed to pay for the additional military spending would cripple important domestic programs such as environmental protection and education.

It's hard to judge foreign policy in the moment, so unless it's an obvious blunder..? — Heister Eggcart

These critics seem to think that he has made an obvious blunder. They described it as dumb and amateurish.