Who is thinking about the world after Trump? We need to do that because Trump is a temporary phenomenon. But what will come after him?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Who is thinking about the world after Trump?
We need to do that because Trump is a temporary phenomenon. All tyrants are, and I think that Trump is a tyrant. And there is always a world after a tyrant because they always fail.
We don't know the cost of his failure as yet. We don't know who will pay the price for it. We know that some people are already. But let's face reality. The time will come when he will be a very nasty memory, and we have to move on.
But the point is, unless we prepare for that moment now, will we have the instruments in place to ensure that the world can recover as fast as it should, and to put in place the forms of governance that we require to be able to manage international relations once stability, hopefully, returns?
We've been here before. It happened during the Second World War. We obviously faced an enormous crisis. The allies in that war, the UK, the USA, Canada, France, and other states, came together from 1943 onwards to talk about how the world would be organised once Hitler was dispatched.
Now, I'm not pretending, and let's be clear about this, that Trump and Hitler are directly comparable, because they're not. But both created chaos that did and will give rise to a need for a new world order.
And in some sense, Trump is the consequence of the people of the USA realising that the world order that they were and are facing was no longer sustainable. And a great many people around the world would actually agree with that. It isn't sustainable as it is and was.
Neoliberalism has driven the world to a point where, frankly, most people are suffering in some way as a consequence of the increasing wealth divide in the world, the increasing threat from climate change in the world, and the increasing international tensions in the world arising because we have a few mad oligarchs trying to drive the world into a position where stability is threatened.
So we need to come up with a new order that will manage these risks. A new order that will deliver stability and justice, and equity and sustainability and fairness for developing countries; all of those things being equally important and having to be balanced in whatever setup we come up with.
And this new order will require new world organisations.
What's very clear is that the 1945 settlement orders, which were created with good intention, are probably at the end of their lives. However useful the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have been, we now need a structure which recognises the needs of developing countries and does not exploit them by requiring, for example, that they always borrow in dollars. We need something that recognises these countries have currencies of their own, in which they should be allowed to trade.
The United Nations is dominated by a Security Council that reflects the main participants in World War II, and that makes no sense in the current world. We should actually not have vetoes for the UK, for France, for the US and Russia because they don't need that status anymore.
The World Trade Organisation very clearly needs to find a new trade order, which it's failed to do for nearly 30 years now because Trump has disrupted everything, and I could move on.
The World Health Organisation might need to actually think about how we actually cure illnesses rather than simply maintain them for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies.
The International Labour Organisation needs to start protecting workers.
So these organisations need a radical kick up the backside at the very least, and a major reorganisation so that everyone in the world is fairly represented within them and so we do get a new world order that does reflect the requirements of everyone and not just a few wealthy nations.
Now, this has to therefore be a post-colonial settlement. That is what we are looking for after Trump.
But who's doing the thinking to do this? Where is the Lord Keynes, who was one of the main architects of the Bretton Woods agreement, thinking from the 1930s onwards about how we could organise the world after a war, and he was something of a specialist in that. He basically financed the UK through both the First World War and the Second World War, and then thought about what to do afterwards, even if he died at the end of World War II and never saw his settlement come into place.
Where is that thinking taking place?
Where are the discussions taking place?
Where is the diplomacy happening?
Where is there this way of trying to cooperate?
The UK can't even agree with the EU about anything, and it's our biggest trading partner. We are outside it rather than talking to it.
We can't agree with other countries around the world, even though we head one of the largest international organisations, the Commonwealth. And yet, what does it stand for? It's hard to know.
The USA is not going to be using its previous economic power to influence the world in its favour in any new international settlement because Trump has destroyed confidence in that country. But somewhere we need world leaders who can stand out from the crowd and lead that crowd towards some form of international agreement.
We desperately need that agreement. It's got to happen, but unless we start the process rolling right now., when Trump is not at his worst, and I very much doubt he is as yet, and when the implications of Trump have not yet been fully seen, and I very much doubt that is the case as yet, then we are not going be ready when he falls, whenever that might be.
And he will most certainly fall. There may be a cost; there may be a dramatic cost before that happens, but fall he will. And then we've got to be ready. But right now. We most definitely aren't, and we need to start thinking about it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Fall he will, but Trump’s merely a front for a more sinister movement, and unless there’s some kind of Nuremberg reckoning for all those who tried or are trying to overturn democratic processes in the US, this ultra religious, white supremacist agenda will continue in some form and continue to spread its infectiousness to other countries. If we can at least reduce its impact on Europe, we can try to move on. It may stall here and on the mainland when the grim outcome of the 2025 plan becomes more apparent over time. Europe is uniquely placed to carry the torch for progressively-led societies that consider the needs of all.
I agree. Trump is a symptom. And it won’t be easy to overthrow what he represents.
Keynes was frustrated by the American negotiator Harry Dexter White whose main objective was to ensure US dominance despite his links to the Soviet Union. White wanted to break up the British system of Imperial preference so American firms could enter that market.
However, Keynes’ ideas were used in a wider context and gave the world growth and an improvement in living standards not seen before.
I take the view that Europe offers a better vision of the future than the US or China. It is not perfect by any means but countries co-operate not just in economic matters, but politically and socially. Europe plays a major part in international organisations. The rule of law and the ECHR are followed for the most part. The provision for social security and health is better and scientific advances are made. Europe military effort is mainly defensive. We can quibble but I’d live in Europe than the US, China or Russia.
It often takes a crisis to focus the mind and Trump has provided that. This forum shows some people are thinking and expressing a view.
On balance I agree, but I’ve never forgotten being in Cyprus for a conference, during the “Eurozone” haircut imposed by Germany on poorer Eurozone nations.
The charitable organisation whose conference I was at, operates partly out of Cyprus, and banked there to manage salaries. It was a painful time.
That economic power imbalance needs attention.
Thank you.
Djonze: “Europe is uniquely placed to carry the torch for progressively-led societies that consider the needs of all.”
The global south / zone B may quibble with that statement, especially your use of the world unique.
We certainly do…and I hope we can realise and achieve what you suggest.
However, I look around the world and I see politicians / leaders of institutions that reflect a hollowing-out of capability, emphasis on benefitting themselves and very little commitment to a fairer society all largely caused by neo-liberal dogma. For example, we have a Labour government that is almost indistinguishable from previous Conservative governments.
There are undoubtedly ‘minds’ like Keynes – there are many more but I’m thinking of Stiglitz, Mazzucato, Piketty for example – however, there does not seem to be the political will to listen to and be led by ‘thinkers’ as opposed to vested interests and short-term politicking.
Nonetheless, I truly hope this is the wake-up call – and badly needed reformation – that society needs to improve the lives of the many, rather than just the few.
That’s the “What?” and a very challenging list it is.
Then there are the “Who?”.
Where are the gifted, honest, but very realistic women and men who have an understanding of how the world works, and how people work? The ones who aren’t selfish, greedy and dishonest, the ones with understanding and vision, whose chief ambition is to help make the world a better place, people of peace, people of talent, people of goodwill?
I have no doubt that there are thousands of them, scattered around the globe, but at present our world is arranged to ensure that they do not gain influence.
How can they be promoted, protected and provided for, so that they can work together to implement what will, in effect, be a global goodwill revolution? (But please, not another moral crusade or vicious revolution of ideological purity.)
Maybe we need a collection of well financed Tufton Streets, scattered around the world, but unlike Tufton St., dedicated to working collaboratively, to make the world a better place.
I agree: these people exist.
How do we mobilise them?
The ‘who’. There needs to be a process in place to exclude those who have ‘Dark Triad’ personality traits. Psychopathy/narcissism/machiavellianism. Too many leaders fall into that category eg Trump,Putin,Johnson.
Marianne Williamson offered a very different vision in the US election last year.
She did not manage to break through but did have an impact.
This site gives her thinking. https://marianne2024.com/
The Williamson manifesto is certainly worth reading. Most of what she says could be in a Green Party manifesto – she should work with or for them. One thing she didn’t mention was the need to drastically reduce aviation in the climate and transport sections.
At some point there has to be a message of… Hope. WW2 was ultimately a trigger for significant positive change in its aftermath. As we’ve lost sight of that we’ve spent a period losing what was gained, such as with reduced inequality and erosions in civil freedoms and protections. The hope is that the cataclysm that Trump is proving to the world order is the jolt that pushes the UK to work better with its nearest neighbours, so see where rising inequality inexorably leads, and to trigger actions and agreements that steer away from reaching a similar position to the US.
We may be in ‘interesting times’, but there is a significant increase in discussion that is publicly visible on what a better future could look like.
Let us hope.those voices win, and by hope I don’t mean passively watch, but to speak and act out in support in the hope that we can help make a difference.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
Richard rightly asks: Where is that thinking taking place? Where are the discussions taking place? Where is the diplomacy happening? Where is there this way of trying to cooperate?
If one pays attention to the western MSM, one may think nothing is happening.
Discussions have been taking place since 1998 and the Asian financial crisis and the then Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad’s idea of an Asian Monetary Fund. A decade or so later, the BRICS and the Asian Infrastructure Investment and BRICS Development Banks were set up. The BRICS secretariat does a lot, too. In 2009 – 10, I was involved with training Chinese, Russian and Turkish regulators.
Western experts like my friend Kathleen Tyson, ex Fed and Bank of England, are involved with initiatives to bypass the dollar and western financial system. The western MSM won’t have her on as, for starters, she volunteers at a food bank and marches for Palestine.
The world outsider the west knows Trump is a symptom and does not trust the west, whether led by Trump or AN Other Cypher.
The Global North has been digging its own grave for some time and letting the U.S. drag it there. This is where Trump’s ‘disruption’ might be helpful. But a lot of damage has been done.
The way I would put it is that the personalities will come and go but the bad ideas will remain because you only have to look at human history to see that. There will be more Trumps – and whoever thought that an ex comedian or B film actor would be the leader of their country either?
Do you know why that happened? Because certain people conspired together to make it so, perhaps?
Tyrants exist naturally, as does those who follow them – I think that that is what Hannah Ardent identified when she thought deeply about fascism as she sat their looking at one of the men (Eichmann) who nearly sent her to a gas oven in some hell hole in Eastern Europe.
What comes after Trump creates a question. And it goes something like ‘Why do we allow the rich to dominate democracy with their money?’.
So to me it is very simple. The target is very simple, the soft underbelly of it all. These games have been going on for decades in human societies.
The answers are not easy ones either. It means coming to terms with curbing the rights of a section of society who are prone to getting carried away at everyone else’s expense and have also popularised that as a social objective. That remains my view. It’s a thorny question.
But it goes something like taxation not only curbing inflation, helping to keep up the value of the currency and the other points made in the Joy of Tax; it also points to controlling excess wealth and saying that such wealth cannot be trusted in the hands of those who have it. Therefore those resources are better being broken up and shared more widely – in other words we need anti-monopoly measures applied to money distribution never mind services.
If you want justification for that, then all you have to do is look at public choice theory of James Buchanan and the accusations he made of the public sector and realise that everything he accused the state of has always been done by private individuals and corporations. But like all good fascists, Buchanan and Gordon Tullock (who was as a fake an academic as you could ever get according to Nancy MacLean ) they got their refutation in first.
Taking this action would help – but then we would need to look at the democracy beneath it all, the checks and balances would need to revised because they do not work either.
The conversation here resonates deeply with the urgency of our times. While the article and comments rightly highlight the necessity of re-imagining global governance and confronting the legacies of neoliberalism, what strikes me most is the collective yearning for a world rooted in empathy rather than exploitation. Yes, institutions need reform, but perhaps the core challenge is dismantling the myth that progress must come at the expense of the marginalised.
The parallels drawn to post-WWII rebuilding are apt, but today’s crises—climate collapse, digital divides, and spiralling inequality—demand more than updated Bretton Woods frameworks. They require a fundamental shift in how we value human dignity over capital. It’s heartening to see mentions of thinkers like Stiglitz and Mazzucato, yet their ideas often feel siloed in academia while grassroots movements worldwide—from climate strikers to labour organisers—are already practising the solidarity we need.
The question isn’t just “Where are the leaders?” but “How do we amplify the communities already forging paths forward?” Marginalised nations and youth activists are not waiting for permission to demand equity; they’re redefining power on their terms. True preparedness for a post-Trump era means centring these voices, not just restructuring institutions. It means recognising that justice delayed—whether in holding autocrats accountable or addressing colonial debts—is justice denied.
This isn’t merely a political project; it’s a cultural reckoning. Can we foster global cooperation that prioritises care over control? The answer lies not in waiting for visionary leaders, but in nurturing the collective courage to re-imagine our shared future—one where “progress” isn’t measured by GDP, but by the well-being of the most vulnerable. The road is daunting, but every comment here is a testament to the fact that the seeds of this transformation are already sown. Now, let’s water them.
A question about vision and values prompted by the comment above, hoping for a world based on “empathy rather than exploitation”.
Imagine 4 siblings in a car on a long journey – they all have reasons for travelling to a city 200 miles away.
One has severe hip arthritis and experiences a lot of pain when the car brakes, accelerates or goes over a pothole. They are on the way to have a hip replacement.
One is going to visit a terminally ill relative in a care home.
One has a business apointment and they don’t want to be late as it might cost them a contract.
The driver is renting the car by the hour and has a job interview.
They are sharing the car.
They are seeking advice from Morgan McSweeney, Kemi Badenoch, Ni**l Fa***e and Ed Davey about how to arrange the journey (route, speed etc).
What might each suggest according to their way of doing politics, and how might they explain their decision?
What would YOU suggest and why?
That might get the award for one of the most obscure questions posted here……
GB-wide voting intentions (Find Out Now, 23rd April 2025):
Reform UK 28% (-)
Conservatives 20% (-)
Labour 20% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 14% (-)
Greens 13% (+3)
SNP 3% (-)
Reform 339 seats and other parties 311. Majority 28 seats. Seat calculation: James Kelly ‘SCOT goes POP’ (using Electoral Calculus seats predictor)
Prime Minister Farage.
I wouldn’t have thought life in the UK would be improved by that result.
We need PR
We do – preferably before 2029.
Thank you, both.
I’m glad that a member of the community has posted this poll.
When I saw that yesterday and soon after read about the donors behind Trump, Reform and Blair, I thought that a Farage premiership is a realistic prospect. I also thought that nearer 2029, I could see Labour MPs defecting to Reform. For some reason, I reckon the successor to the Elphicke dynasty will be one of them.
Two days ago, my parents and I caught up with old family friends. The family includes current and former Labour members. The latter, the parents, resigned from (Buckinghamshire) Labour in disgust at Starmer late last year. The former, the children and grandchild and living in north London, still believe in Labour. All view Starmer as the sock puppet of the Blair machine and don’t think he or the cabinet are for turning, and, in any case, it’s not for them to decide policy.
I note Ben Houchen are open to an alliance with Reform.
Why are they members then?
Never trust polls. Where, when, who etc are all factors. I’m glad there’s a bellwether election now, as there is time for reaction and for the plans of the far right to become more visible. Fascism hates the light in its early days. As to an alternative, there are too many fiefdoms and not enough commonality in the centre left, as well as grifters like Galloway. I had hoped there would be a coalescence around Feinstein in the South and Driscoll in the North, but no.
Perhaps the new anti-colonialist thinking and new world order will be led and inspired by someone/a group outside Europe. We in Europe have had our chance, and look at what we have produced. I’d tend to look to Latin America, Africa, maybe China or India. We In Europe probably won’t like the new thinking, because it will explicity reject some of our values. Whatever, I think we have to widen our views and listen.
Thank you and well said, Linda.
Please see my comments above.
From 2007 – 16, I often worked in Brussels, Frankfurt, Washington and Basel. I never got the impression that the US and EU thought the world was changing.
With the G20, Brown and even George Bush II, at Pittsburgh in October 2008, understood, but that momentum has been lost.
Thank you, Linda.
Further to Linda’s comment, the global south/ zone B thinks of western support for this sort of thing, https://x.com/tparsi/status/1915354884683010242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1915354884683010242%7Ctwgr%5E72e0c9c57cca1efc36abf36cfa56f54677f06349%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flinks-4-25-2025.html, when lectured by western leaders and faced with western leadership.
Thank you to Robert J, above.
With regard to that Cyprus hair cut, I had just left the banking trade body and remember it well. Some years later, I worked at Germany’s largest bank.
It was an interesting time and exercise and shows how bad the EU is / can be.
The exercise, called a “bail in” was part marketed as a means of confiscating Russian money deposited in Cyprus. The problem with that was the confiscation was telegraphed well in advance and the Russians got their money out. In addition, the London branches of the Cypriot banks, where many Russian deposits were booked, were exempt.
The tottering Greek and Cypriot economies threatened to bring Germany’s banks down (whereas the Italian crisis threatened to bring down French banks before German banks). German banks lent money to clients there for real estate, but also the Greek government for arms.
as I recall the Troika was the EU Commission who are subject to the European Council , the ‘independent’ ECB and the IMF ( the American voice?)
Together it seems the voice of the bankers were louder than governments and people of Europe.
I suggest Trump isn’t the problem, rather, the system that allows him to flourish. That is, of course, “The West”. For hundreds of years “the west” has given the world colonialism, wars, theft and slavery. “The west” is responsible for Hitler, for Israel, for Libya, for South American dictators, for Iraq, for Yugoslavia, for Sudan, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea.. the list is nearly endless. And all so “The West ” can live a comfortable life.
Time now for “The West” to pipe down, and let the other 85% of the world take over and hope that they are kinder to us than we have been to them!
I question the optimism here.
The impact of climate chaos and the collapse of continental scale ecological systems, which neoliberalism is fueling may well trigger the next geological epoc. Will there be anyone to write the history of this period?
I will always campaign for the changes that will bring about a humane world in synch with nature. This is what this blog is about…
What comes next with the bat-shit crazies in charge dosnt look dandy. For the 70 years I’ve around, learning the lessons of past mistakes just doesn’t feature. eg look at Rachael Reeves and her ‘light touch regulation’ of financial markets. More bright ideas like this are coming thick and fast among the political class weded to pre Capernicus economic theology.
There is a fascinating article in today’s email from ‘The Conservation.com’ about China’s cycles of growth and inequality over a period of 2000 years.
One of the reasons for the cycles was the development of a new technology e.g. an iron plough.
At the end of the article, with reference to new technology of AI, the author points out that the real threat has never been the technology itself, but the concentration of its spoils.
In the future it would be better for the world if the development of AI was not confined to a few individuals.
The full article can be can read on the website below:
https://theconversation.com/what-2-000-years-of-chinese-history-reveals-about-todays-ai-driven-technology-panic-and-the-future-of-inequality-254505?
Thanks
Thank you, Richard.
With regard to policy making, I meant Starmer and his cabinet. The feeling is the Blair apparatus calls the shots.
The younger ones think Labour’s true self will out itself.
Putting aside the simplistic and unhelpful UK v USA ‘this could never happen in Blighty’ false narrative, I found this attempt to begin to see and engage with the structural anti democracy revolution that MAGA have instigated already has parallel UK government actions, clear to those of us constantly (fearfully) paying attention over the last 17-18 years, insightful and supportive: https://robertjrei.substack.com/p/the-shape-of-the-descent-a-strategic
I haven’t been able to get round to it until now, but wanted to say how much I loved this video. It inspires hope, which is worryingly thin on the ground. Politicians and government do no inspire hope!
I loved it’s future-orientated theme. A world without Trump, and call to our own agency. 🙂
So important to keep hope alive, the dark forces around us want people to internalise hopelessness, because I suspect they know that psychologically this is how you control, since hope is an incredible force for change, drives motivation even in seemingly lost situations.
The hardest work I have to do is when hopelessness has been internalised.
When there is nothing else we have a choice. Mine will, for as long as it is possible, be to carry on.
A sensible question, especially now the old world is clearly falling. We need stronger but also more accountable (those go together: power must always be accountable) global governance, really even to survive as a species:
https://gezwinstanley.wordpress.com/oblivion-or-cosmocracy-the-terrible-dilemma-of-weapons-of-mass-destruction/