Ignoring cheap personal attacks of various participants, I have found something worth to answer:
There are many good reasons why the world left the gold standard and not one of them had anything to do with conspiracies and hegemony. It makes no sense to continually ship gold across the world just for the sake of maintaining a gold standard which never really worked well.
There are good reasons for a commodity-backed currency. The purely pragmatic one that you will have, in the average, zero inflation, and so long term contracts become much more secure, with much less need to renegotiate them every year or so because of inflation. A commodity-backed currency does in no way mean that you have to ship that commodity around a lot. And the people would not lose from their savings in currency because of inflation. So, the people would like it. The governments would not like it, because inflation is income for the state.
There are good reasons for a single currency.
There have been, in the past. A single currency instead of bartering means you need much less exchanges. In the classical world, every exchange needs time and causes costs.
But modern electronic banking reduces these costs. An electronic bank could offer payments in any currency to its customers, with each customer deciding himself in which currency to store the cash, and automatic exchange for every transfer with minimal or no fee. This is, of course, nothing the states like to offer the people - they prefer to force their citizens to hold only their own currency, because this allows them to extract inflation tax. But this is nothing which can be preserved for long. In an internet-connected multi-polar world, it becomes difficult to impossible to prevent states from offering accounts to foreigners, and to offer, then, such fast and cheap exchange services to all their customers. In fact, you can have all this already today, but it is simply uncomfortable yet.
There is good reason for a world government. As our world becomes smaller owning to our growing technologies, the need for global human collaboration and cooperation has grown exponentially, and it will continue to do so. Now that’s a problem for corrupt rogue states like Russia who want to take the world back to the Middle Ages, but that’s not our problem.
Cooperation is unproblematic, except if states want to make it problematic. As they usually want (to protect their own big firms from competition). So, collaboration and cooperation is not a sufficient justification for a world government. Instead, many states are much better to protect free collaboration and cooperation, because if one state becomes rogue, all the internet activities can easily migrate to civilized locations, and the real things will follow. But if the world government goes rogue, the world becomes a hell.
Multipolar means no global regulation of nations competing over resources. Inevitably one nation will become superior. World history of war and empire building 101.
Unipolar means that all nations abide by a central set of regulations minimizing competition for resources and encouraging greater and more equitable sharing of resources.
but such notions are beyond you...
No, such notions are obvious examples of wishful thinking that Big Government, in this case the Unipolar Regulatory Instance or so, will do good things, instead of supporting the superior state, and minimizing competition for resources by owning them alone.
My formulation avoided mindreading and ascription of motive, and simply described what happened.
It included claims about facts - namely who lies - which I tried to avoid. Again, my point is a technical one, if you want to avoid distortions by a hostile press, use ways to communicate which cannot be distorted by the press, because they are accessible to everybody.
Trump did not avoid interviews. He relished them, pushed for them, did lots of them.
To do so, you have to be a strong enough player to set basic conditions (like to make sure that the whole interview is send, without cuts). And you have to be a media professional yourself. Above conditions are fulfilled, so that it makes sense to do so. But I see, my text was easy to misinterpret as a claim that Trump did not give interviews. This was not the intention. My point was different: to describe a general strategy how to handle hostile media. For average people, to give interviews to hostile media is the most stupid thing they can do.
But it doesn't explain the continuation of that support after Trump won the Republican nomination, and it doesn't explain the poor treatment and repeated damage they inflicted on Clinton in comparison.
I don't have to explain things which imho are only your fantasy. You had the chance, and given your 63% pro-Trump NYT source, I have tested it, and have found at a randomly chosen day 87% anti-Trump in NYT. You think I have to care after this about your fantasies?
By the way, you continue to mingle real support - writing pro-Trump - and large media coverage, which can contain a lot of anti-Trump writing. I know very well that in such cases even negative reports are better than no reports, at least to some degree. But this effect matters if you are one of ten or so candidates - there the candidate without media coverage at all is out. But this plays no role in the final round. So, what I concede that writing a lot of bad things about Trump in the primaries has helped him, against candidates nobody with no media coverage. But in the final round, this is no longer what matters.
In the final round, the already quite common distrust in the mainstream media starts to matter - the number of people who elect the candidate most hated by the mainstream media is increasing. But this is yet another problem.
And having been pre-corrupted by the rightwing corporate authoritarian media operations, they were unable even to insist on basic terms of integrity or honest journalism.
YMMD. Mainstream media connected in a single sentence with "basic terms of integrity or honest journalism", LOL.
