A NEW AREA IN POLITICS, GLOBALIZATION AND MONEY

A NEW AREA IN POLITICS, GLOBALIZATION AND MONEY

The US, presidential elections were won the Republican candidate Donald Trump. Two major factors influenced this.

First, Trump responded to the desire for change from the wider community after the global crisis. The image of "advocating America first" with the emphasis on protective politics, the walling and immigration prevention on the Mexican border, the image of shaking the current system with style and rhetoric has met a section of the need for change. The reaction against the FED, Wall Street and current status quo also reinforced this image. These rhetoric and attitudes jhave encompassed the unemployed, the low income, the broader sections that did not benefit from globalization and suffered from the crisis.

Secondly, the fact that the Democratic Party has been in power for two periods and that it has to change the presidential candidate due to the two-term rule is also an important handicap. The new presidential candidate Clinton was in front of the US public for a long time. She was not new as a face and was worn out. She did not say anything new either. FBI investigations of the e-mails from the Ministry of Foreign Affairsand and her health problems have also been handicaped her. She represented exactly the status quo and was defeated. With another candidate, the Democrats could have won more votes, but this could not be sufficient to win the presidency anyway.

We see that a global trend that started with Brexit in the UK and with the US selection, it is getting more clear. This trend is an anti-globalization, a nationalist and local trend that encloses countries and economies. It is due to the demands of large segments, who did not benefit from the benefits of globalization, to get more share from the economy. This can only be done under authoritarian leadership, with the determination and compulsion of the leader who is closer to the people. In the elections to be made in major countries after the UK and the US elections, we can see this in more or less the same way. The disturbances created by society and the deterioration of the distribution of income by globalization and the crisis are becoming more and more evident in the elections. Voters' orientation of politics in this way may not only increase the momentum and protection of globalization, but also increase the public weight in the economy. More statist approaches can come to the forefront.

It is difficult for the central banks to maintain their abundant and cheap monetary policies in the face of this change in the global political conjuncture. Anyway, when the signs from here are played out, it is possible that the period of abundant and cheap money ends with the influence of the developments on the side of politics. The large and inexpensive money that was launched against the crisis and sustained for 8 years did not favor the large masses. The prices of financial assets and real estate have increased, as the abundant liquidity created by the central banks were mainly used by the financial sector. Wealth and capital grew more and more. Now, the broader societies want politics to put an end to this situation.

Considering this situation, it would be more destructive for the medium and long-term effects compared to the initial impact of shocks in the markets in the short-term. Since 2008, the volatility of financial markets has built-up and moved on an artificial ground at high altitude. But it is also a big blow to the abundant and cheap money structure. The demolition of the structure will take some time.