i think our main hope is a sharp popular revulsion that compels Republican legislators to fear the wrath of the public more than they value whatever benefits donors or a (presumably discredited) Trump might confer. when Trump’s approval rating is 20%, reform may become possible.
yes. it’s the legislature that’s the issue. our Constitution is built around the legislature. it’s Article I for a reason. the deep roots of our nightmare derive from the legislature abdicating, leaving the Executive and the Court to usurp control.
yeah. the pardon power is a nightmare now. it was bad to render it unilateral to begin with. it’s been made infinitely worse by the immunity decision, which grants absolute immunity for pardons, renders them unreviewable by courts even when they’re alleged to be an element of a crime. 1/
fixing the founders’ error requires an amendment. but fixing the Court’s error just requires a better Court. /fin
the word "moderation" hides a lot. pre-Trump, US institutions were tilted toward a center that, as you say, was really just a center-right status quo, neoliberal economics + social liberalism. 1/
but that has never been the center of US public opinion, which holds preferences that are quite social-democratic (though Americans don't recognize or understand that label). 2/
approval voting rewards voters near that popular center, not near the fake center elites defined during the 1980-2015 era. for a bit more on this, here's me… drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/03/28/h... /fin
yes. which is why the answer is big, well funded government that actually ensures everyone complies, a level playing field, rather than small government which favors those who cheat and, with substantial probability, get lucky and get away with it.
there’s defining how communication wld work if the world were as rational as perhaps it shld be, and communicating in a world where words have sloppy usages, communication relies in a sense on getting the puns right (and misinformation can be wittingly or unwittingly spawned by getting them wrong).
Senate rebalancing is hard (it’d take two Constitutional amendments, one to get rid of the line prohibiting amending equal suffrage of the states). But approval voting would tilt the Senate towards moderation. Every state is purple, except within a narrow margin. 1/
DOJ independence requires reforming or persuading the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment). it’s the Court that’s delivering tyranny laundered as a “unitary executive”. 2/
but the actual Constitution is very clear on giving Congress roles in structuring the executive branch. all it takes is a Supreme Court that recognizes Congress’ ability to structure offices with a degree of independence from the President, as was the status quo until quite recently. 3/
money out of politics, like DOJ independence, is most immediately another Court issue. Citizens United is obviously bad law, and in general we need to roll back the idea that entities the rich can make and fund have rights like natural people. 4/
a bit less immediately, the only way really to get zillionaires out of politics is not to have them. an act of Congress could restore FDR’s reasonable rate structure (with inflation adjusted brackets), and impose a wealth tax that would force billionaires to distribute their wealth quickly. 5/
Congress has the power to restructure the Court. if it plays hardball, it can strip the Court if jurisdiction over its restructuring, so say term limits can’t be struck down. 6/
i’m a bit less comfortable with term limits per se than restructuring the Court entirely to make terms of particular justices matter less, or perhaps make them become emeritus with reduced roles after a term. here are some of my suggestions: www.interfluidity.com/v2/7964.html 7/
repealing laws, codifying ethics, DC statehood, all available to Congress any day of the week. 8/
i’m not sure what “security independence” means? /fin
the Constitution is a sketch. tons can be done within its lines. shifting the House to proportional representation and Senate and the Presidency to approval voting could be done with a single act of Congress, and would radically transform our politics. it wouldn’t be enough, but it’d be a real start
lax regulation can render domestic industries untrustworthy and so drive them offshore. good regulation supports and encourages high quality production. it is not a deadweight cost to businesses that must comply. Great thread by @sarahtaber.bsky.social
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
isn't failing to deter notoriously filthy PCA with inspections and fines before the outbreak a regulatory failure? that's not sensible, perhaps, but it should be remediable through policy.
We're supposed to reform our system of government so that it does not deform us into two fragile coalitions governed by marginal voters whose preferences are ill-informed and random, susceptible to purchase by plutocrats who themselves must be reformed out of existence.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
if he is Robinson Crusoe, that's the end of the story perhaps. if he has the option of selling the seeds, renting his labor and the land, then his choosing to instead farm himself was a choice to bear financial risk in hope of greater reward.
If you posit a world of no financial opportunity cost, I'll concede in that world it may not make sense to talk about financial risk. But in any context where the resources devoted to business (including labor) might alternatively have been sold or rented for money, there is financial risk-bearing.
What people really hate about "unelected bureaucrats" is they turn into unaccountable tyrants before we find ourselves helpless and unfree. Thank goodness the Trump administration is on the case, putting those bureaucrats in their place. thetrek.co/a-german-thr... ht @benroyce.bsky.social
German Thru-Hiker Detained, Deported, and Banned From US - The Trek
Link Preview: German Thru-Hiker Detained, Deported, and Banned From US - The Trek: An experienced thru-hiker traveling to the US to hike the AZT last month says she was treated inhumanely and deported without justification.
(if it's not entirely clear, my "thank goodness" is ironic, this is an example of how the Trump administration empowers little tyrants, as long as they share the administration's malignities.)
I think we might just get caught up in definitional differences. To me, whomever bears the financial risk of an enterprise capitalizes it. No financial system is necessary. 1/
So, if I devote many hours and my own resources to putting together a business, I'm financing it, even if no "financial transfers" are involved. The resources, including my labor, had alternate uses that could have converted to money. 2/
I've forgone that money, and if the business fails to work out, it's a loss. In that sense, I bear financial risk, even if no formal finance was brought to bear. 3/
Someone always bears such a risk, whether it is an elaborate skein of players as modern financial systems enable, or just a solo entrepreneur. In that sense, financial risk-bearing is a necessary factor of production. 4/
To me it is what "financial capital " means. No money or banks or anything else are necessary to bring it into existence. Just the fact that all economic production entails risk, and some party must bear that risk, must therefore "capitalize" the production. /fin
another way of saying that maybe it's good deficit countries become poorer in order to overcome the imbalance. but that's not necessary. 1/
i agree the imbalance is a problem, but with intelligent use of financial tools, it could be brought down gradually so domestic replacements have time to ramp up. cold turkey is stupid, politically, developmentally, in every respect. /fin
trade deficit countries have to replace the actual goods they can no longer source from trade partners. it's not a financial or macro/GDP issue. it's a loss of real goods, services, and resources on which their economy and society depends.
i don't think they do have structural employment issues. it's country by country, obviously, but for Germany the constraints have been deficient domestic demand and the supply shock with respect to Russian energy. 1/
never forget that the Nordics consistently have higher labor-force participation rates than in work-or-die America. /fin
persistent surplus countries just have to write a check to their own people, then deal with higher accounting deficits or tax the rich. any inflation is limited because, well, excess supply. persistent deficit countries have to build industries they've forgotten or never known how to run. 1/
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
obviously this is oversimplified, because the goods and services previously exported by surplus countries won't precisely match the goods and services domestic publics will want to buy. directed subsidies can help ameliorate this. 2/
further, surplus countries that produce high-value goods tend to have metacapacity — they know how to build competitive industries. deficit countries less so. 3/
you'd much rather be a surplus country than a deficit country in a time of growing trade barriers. the main benefit to deficit countries is they can learn to become more like surplus countries. /fin
I don't know. I do a mix of calling, writing on their webform contact pages, and postal mail. But I have no idea which, if any, makes an impression.