This administration wants lower rates. Also this administration does everything it can to increase inflation such as tariffs and starting another endless war in the middle east.
Inflate away the $40Trillion+ debt they can never pay back
Or
Hard default on the debt, and be the one holding the hot potato as the union breaks up.
Fed is trying to thread the needle between the two and keep the music playing as long as possible.
American exceptionalism even in failure?
And people still think they don't have a political choice because it is impossible to pay it up. You are all alienated and going to the double down disaster.
Fed independance is about tempering that policy so UST still has buyers.
At 2% over just 25 years money loses 60% of its value. That is not insignificant, and of course with higher rates it loses value quicker.
Not really, inflating it away is the only possible choice.
In general its a game between the people who love their own power/money and hate US citizens (most Republicans and many Democrats) vs people who don't hate the people they're supposed to represent (Socialist Democrats and a handful of Republicans).
The thinking process is just line their pockets with as much as possible before they lose their position to someone else.
Once you understand that everything is rational. If not desirable.
The populace is who is too interested in winning politics as a sport that the politicians have really no choice other than to focus entirely on winning the next election.
If the voters treat politics as a constant form of sports entertainment, constantly checking the latest news and events, then voters are actually the fundamental problem as to why the politicians can not do anything in terms of long term planning.
If you want to reduce the spectacle, replace FPTP with a better system that eliminates the need for primaries, and get rid of Citizens United. Good luck.
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
1. greater voter satisfaction, with virtually any ratio of strategic to honest voting. (i.e. "more resistant to strategy")
2. drastically simpler. (same ballot, precinct summable, lower kolmogorov complexity)
3. transparent: each result is a simple scalar sum of support, so third party and independent candidates don't have their support hidden from view.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.goo...
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth...
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis. https://approval.vote/
I would also argue mandatory voting would be useful but I don't think the Americans are ready for that.
Yes, but for example if you had proportional representation, the power of gerrymandering would be greatly reduced.
Agree on the other two. I don't know what the answer is there.
The easy acceptance of this authoritarian governing style has been one of the most damaging to the idea of democracy. America's democratic institutions have great marketing but many of us outside the country and not subjected daily to that marketing have long known it is an particularly weak form of democracy and open to corruption, demagoguery and populism. Americans have a susceptibility to authority and hierarchical normalisation, has left them open to this.