It feels more and more like a deceptive charade that the US is actually a democratic republic. It is increasingly clear that in a number of significant areas the shady bureaucracy is taking action without the public's consent.
I often wonder how the US will be seen in history books, and it's quickly slipping further into the evil section.
That will depend upon who wins.
Many regulatory agencies can pass new rule changes that have widespread impact on productivity and business. These rules are not subject to electoral review, since these are non-elected officials making decisions.
It's time we reign in government on all levels, to increase the freedoms of individuals, businesses, and even the states.
Or, if you dislike comedic form, the Crossman Diaries are insightful in the working of the civil service:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=Richard+Crossman+di...
We separate "politics" from our bureaucracy. It's quite difficult to, say, fire a civil servant.
Don't get me wrong, I think the spoils system was worse. (Hmm, why do I think that...) But the independence of the civil service is intentional. Elected officials and not very effective oversight.
Solve problems in your local township.
If can not resolve:
Go up to County level for resolution.
If can not resolve:
Go up to Sate level for resolution.
If can not resolve: iterate as necessary.
As soon as their operations can no longer be felt in the same geographical area as any other part of said corporation, they have gotten too big and need to be broken back up again.
When corporations were smaller, it seemed there was better control and oversight. If they fouled their nests, it was eventually (preferably rapidly, but not always the case) obvious in the same locality and could be subjected to local response/censure, until wrongs were made right or they were closed.
Overall, more localized government would seem to also provide for better "vote with your feet:" If one does not like the local consensus, one may move to another locality, possibly not that far away from the first, where the environs are more to one's liking.
I am purposely using subjective language such as "seems" since I know I must not be as smart as others in these arenas. But so far, the ideas above have my support/backing/agreement.
fwiw.
Financial booms/crisis seem to be cyclical, if one looks over a large enough period of time. It also seems that cycles before Central Banks didn't have such huge swings/blow-back. We tended to recover from the damage quicker and it was more localized.
I am stuck with a basic conundrum: There are problems for humans that are larger than any one national government, and it makes logical sense for a world government to exist to address problems of that scale.
But when I stop and think about the types of people that are _attracted_ to positions of power, I shudder and decide I like my congressional deadlock, thank you very much.
And that does not even begin to get to the part where once a problem solving-body exists, all problems begin to look like nails to the hammer...
That brings me back around to potential answers that look much smaller than the current (working?) models.
Humans have conducted commerce well enough before there were national/international banks, since finance is mostly a matter of trust and faith, at the core. I do not doubt that there would continue to be commerce conducted over vast distances, even if our current financial institutions were greatly shrunk back down to something closer to local banks again.
But I agree that my suggestions sure sound like "boy I miss the good old days..."