Donald Trump has set the scene for change in the US  -  change that you have correctly described to be so necessary, not only for the US but right around the western world.
He has already retreated from some of his election policies which is somewhat disappointing.  One hopes that he will be strong in pursuing his policies but I foresee quite a bit of resistance from the “Permanent Government”, which is the bureaucracy remaining irrespective of who wins the poll. (Shades of “Yes Minister”!).  The other force he is likely to contend with is the power of finance  -  those with their hands on the levers of money can ensure certain things either succeed or fail.

I do not consider Trump’s plan to dismantle Trade Agreements like the TPP as being ‘not conservative’.  Deals like the TPP are so binding in such a multitude of issues that they cannot be considered conservative.  Free markets fit more appropriately under the conservative banner.
By dismantling Trade Agreements, Trump will be able to bring back the industries to US shores and thus create jobs.  There is a clear lesson for Australia and others here, since the experiment of Globalisation has failed dismally.

Another issue facing the developed world which has not been fully grasped by political leaders and commentators, regards the lack of purchasing power in the community.  Getting industry going with job growth will certainly help as the wages and salaries flow.  However that alone will not solve the problem because every manufacturer is utilising more technology in the form of robotic production.  Every robot ‘employed’ has displaced several   wage-earners meaning less purchasing power in the community.  The trend is growing progressively, so the problem is sure to increase.  To focus our attention on this, we must consider an extreme example where all production is done by robots and nobody is employed  -  how would we purchase the product?  From where would the purchasing power come?  Of course we cannot imagine such a situation where nobody would be employed but it does make us think.  I reckon a National dividend would be an answer but it would need to be funded from other than taxation.  Funding it from taxes would only redistribute the existing deficiency.

We may on the cusp of better times but it will require effort from those which such desires.
KG, Naracoorte, SA


* IPA - Institute of Public Affairs