>>But with Trump arguments you have to be careful. I personally dislike him always harking about Trade inequalities - Trade and Services for me is the better arena. There is not only Hollywood and a certain valley near Frisco but on east cost there is a lot of funny and stupid money harvested. I certainly do not believe he is the master negotiator and biz wonder he tries to sell to the public, but he has a knack of identifying areas and groups where such tactics work.

Trade deficits always are an issue. NZ's biggest foreign currency deficit is from the total idiocy of selling trading banks to Australian interests. In Australia, foreigners can own only 25% of trading banks but Australians own almost 100% on NZ's banks. When NZ was freeing up trade, some idiocy like this also crept in with public or strategic assets undersold, benefiting the few who sometimes had a hand in setting the low price. I'm opposed to selling any public or strategic asset now: if the privateers are correct that things are run inefficiently, put in the managers with all the incentives etc they'd see after privatization except hold onto the asset. For proof of government doing a sterling job, check out the Aussie pension scheme: public and funded through taxation but run by the same greedies as any fund.

>>And when talking about attempting to dominate, US missionary zeal in judicial area is not really benevolent: from Patriot and Cloud act over IP law to other attempts to make US system the globally accepted yard stick.

Tis the modern legal way: you keep pushing till you're stopped.

>>US system HAS some benefits over other judicial systems...

Costs are an issue with parties responsible for their own legal costs win or lose in the US, except in "exceptional" cases. Hence no disincentive to frivolous suits in the expectation that some will settle rather than fight to win.