Simon Jenkins (We’ve lost a saint. But a sinner may make a better president, 12 January) makes some good points about Obama’s mixed legacy. But he fails to acknowledge the big difference between Trump’s forthcoming presidency and the one Obama has had to endure, especially during his last term. Unlike Obama – who despite his failings was shackled by an unprecedentedly destructive and obstructive Republican majority in both houses – Trump, with the prospect of an even bigger majority behind him, is likely to find it relatively easy to shoe-in all manner of regressive legislation (aided further by a supine supreme court, once he fills that vacant seat).
Lee Robinson
London
• There is a more puzzling conundrum than the potential success of a sinner over a saint. Recently, I listened to Bloomberg financial analysts on the fallout from “desired” US job repatriations. They chose Apple’s iPhone as an example. Unit production cost of an iPhone with Chinese labour: $4. Estimated cost using US labour: $40. Estimated cost using fully automated factories: 0.75 cents. (Foxconn already has such a factory in Asia). Conclusion: repatriation of production using old forms of labour is a no-brainer.
When such a demand is made by a fellow billionaire then capitalists apparently jump. What is the economic or political motive for such a reversal of capitalist plans to maximise profits? In the short term these companies appear to fear the political opprobrium heaped upon them (modulated by daily Trump tweets) more than the wrath of shareholders.
Imagine a demand to a global capitalist company such as General Motors or Ford to repatriate production by a President Sanders (or even Obama). This would be perceived as a gross interference in market freedom and the imposition of a socialist “command economy”. We have a perverse possibility of what historians of the left would regard as a revolution from above. Interesting times.
Edwin Prevost
Harlow, Essex
• American companies looked on with some discomfort as the European community developed into a trading bloc of some 350 million people establishing high standards of consumer protection, employment law, health and safety regulation, and increasingly transparent tax and accounting arrangements. They saw the EC as a real competitor in world markets. Europe in turn sought to reassure US investors of the stability and potential growth of the European market without compromising hard-won policies on competition and standards.
By decoupling from the EU, the UK will be exposed to intense and aggressive dealing from US business (Trade deal could put US business in driving seat, 17 January). We are fooling ourselves if we think we will get better trading deals; nothing will be done in our favour if it can be avoided. It may be that we shall find ourselves having to agree to imported GM foods as a quid pro quo for something else. There is no level playing field; that is how American business works, and how the Trump administration will work.
Anne Simor
Former UK director, America-European Community Association
• It seems that those who are keen to “take back control” by stepping away from the constraints and benefits of the single market hope to quickly step into the embrace of a Trumpist trade deal. Given the president-elect’s well-publicised mode of embracing vulnerable potential partners, isn’t a degree of scepticism required as to how balanced and free such a deal would be – if it ever came to fruition. We seem to be walking a short path from being partners to being victims, with a short detour to tell our former European partners how unimportant their concerns are compared with ours. The adage of pride coming before a fall has never been more appropriate.
Colin Garwood
Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire
• The UK has a serious long-term balance-of-trade deficit. The only new trade deals we should get excited about are those that offer the UK a prospect of achieving a reasonable surplus. I doubt that is what Trump has in mind (Trump: I’ll do quick trade deal with Britain after exit from EU, 16 January).
Rod Logan
Walton-on-Thames, Surrey
• You were kind enough to publish a letter from me in January 2009 at the time of inauguration of President Obama. This was in response to a previous writer who wrote that Bush was once again a nonentity – an irrefutable argument for democracy. I wrote that the fact that he was elected twice was surely an argument against democracy. Now we have Trump and Brexit. What price democracy now?
John Burns
Kidwelly, Carmarthenshire
• Trump has proclaimed the transfer of his asserts to a blind trust (Financial, 14 January). What are the odds for the trust also being deaf?
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
