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.
How is it failure? You use your military to force trade to occur using your tokens. You control the supply of said tokens. You leave some other loser holding the bag for your debts. You win.
Because they cannot force the world to buy their meme token anymore. Either they pay up and joing the world being a good credit-score conscious citizen or they get the boot.
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.
Can’t inflate it away for the same reason we can’t stop climate change. We would have to stop the behavior that caused the problem in the first place, and we all know that’s not going to happen. Remember during Clinton’s presidency the government ran a surplus and started paying down the debt, and there were news articles worrying about the future disappearance of treasury bonds? The party of “fiscal responsibility” took care of that problem in no time at all.
Undoubtedly Republicans have done untold damage to the US. However not all Democrats made the right choices either as it was Clinton who set the stage for further breaking the US economy, opening wide open the gates to complete offshoring (and DMCA, etc).
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).
You're missing choice #3 - spend more money on stupid shit, cut taxes some more, pile on more debt, blame Obama Hussein Hunter Biden for the debt as the opening salvo of the third-term run in 2028.
The goal is to win the next election but I think the populace is to blame for this more than anything.
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.
I always hear this accusation of people treating politics like sports, but what do you want? It's a FPTP system, which favors entrenching two parties. In order to maintain the backing (funding, importantly) of one of those two parties, candidates can't fall too far out of line. If you can't get your outsider preferred candidate above 50%, considering there is also likely another main-party candidate with significant policy overlap, you get nothing.
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.
The one that seems to be working is to treat the system as two-round like the French presidential elections and do the work in the primaries. Worked for Mamdani.
It is essentially a (weird-ass) two-round system when it comes to the presidency (and many lower offices). Party primaries exist, they overwhelmingly gave one of the nominations to a dumpster.
IMO, a runoff or single round instant-runoff wouldn't solve much. Like the sibling says, it's already sort of like that. The way they eliminate candidates still forces/incentivizes people to make choices against their actual preferences. Ideally, you could vote exactly in line with your preferences regardless of who you think has the best chance of winning and not risk making things being worse than they would have been if you "lied." I've heard many times during primaries things like "I like candidate A a lot more, but I don't think they can win the general, so I voted for candidate B". This is also an issue with approval voting, which many people seem to have a very favorable opinion of. If there is an election between <good candidate>, <bad candidate> and <total disaster shitshow candidate>, and you think there's a chance the top two might be Bad and Disaster, do you approve of bad? There's no way for you to indicate that you actually don't like Bad, but are just hoping to prevent the worst.
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
Yeah, preference-based voting is better, but you have to play the hand you're dealt in the meantime. Even dealing with gerrymandering seems to be beyond feasible politics.
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.
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis.
<a href="https://approval.vote/" rel="nofollow">https://approval.vote/
FPTP isn't wonderful but for those of us looking on for outside the tolerance of gerrymander, deliberate disenfranchisement of some voters and letting corporations spend unlimited amounts of money on getting political outcomes ranks higher. FPTP is merely a bad choice. The others look more like a country deliberately eschewing democracy for something else.
Not that I'm a fan of this administration, but inflating away remaining our only option is not related to Trump. It was the only choice for the past administrations since at least the subprime crisis; probably even since the Iraq war. My 2c.
You could also reduce spending on military. The U.S. accounts for 42% of the global military budget. Virtually every empire in history has fallen due to overspending on an excessively large military.
aurareturn · · focus · HN ↗
DarkmSparks · · focus · HN ↗
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.
grey-area · · focus · HN ↗
iririririr · · focus · HN ↗
American exceptionalism even in failure?
RussianBot9580 · · focus · HN ↗
iririririr · · focus · HN ↗
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.
DarkmSparks · · focus · HN ↗
Fed independance is about tempering that policy so UST still has buyers.
grey-area · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
grey-area · · focus · HN ↗
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.
jjav · · focus · HN ↗
Not really, inflating it away is the only possible choice.
qzw · · focus · HN ↗
pbkompasz · · focus · HN ↗
upboundspiral · · focus · HN ↗
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).
vkou · · focus · HN ↗
grim_io · · focus · HN ↗
gonzalohm · · focus · HN ↗
DarkmSparks · · focus · HN ↗
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.
webern777 · · focus · HN ↗
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.
duskdozer · · focus · HN ↗
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.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
vkou · · focus · HN ↗
duskdozer · · focus · HN ↗
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
ClayShentrup · · focus · HN ↗
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.
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/approval-voting-vs-irv" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.goo...
<a href="https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth-funding-5776beefdd2b" rel="nofollow">https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth...
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis. <a href="https://approval.vote/" rel="nofollow">https://approval.vote/
Sabinus · · focus · HN ↗
I would also argue mandatory voting would be useful but I don't think the Americans are ready for that.
rstuart4133 · · focus · HN ↗
duskdozer · · focus · HN ↗
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.
ptero · · focus · HN ↗
trescenzi · · focus · HN ↗
sh0gg0the · · focus · HN ↗