5 ms·

There's a few reasons this broke down... 1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal governm

There's a few reasons this broke down... 1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal government. States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. 2. The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money and enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. 3. The 16th amendment (1913) - Federal income tax - allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time. Those three amendments, in effect, decimated the federal system and centralized power. After that, they could pass what ever they wanted. IMO the internet is re-igniting a public debate and push towards populism -- that and that's why you saw the 2008 rise of Ron Paul, Occupy Wallstreet, Tea Party, Bernie Sandars and now MAGA. (yes, it was coupled with a financial crisis, but the government response led to push back).

bitwize 4y ago
Name the fucking enemy. Starts with a 'C' and ends in 'apitalism'. Read Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work. This is the way.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  I fully agree with lettergram and disagree with naming capitalism as an 'enemy'. How do you think you're going to reduce poverty and create wealth without capitalism?
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    the ussr and china both developed from feudalism without capitalism and lifted a huge number of people out of poverty. not advocating their system, (not not-advocating either), but they are counter examples.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      hmmm arguably capitalism was still required. Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. Further, their agricultural practices in general were learned from the capitalist countries and neither produced / produce enough. Both the USSR and China did / currently rely heavily on food imports. Arguably, they only escaped feudalism because capitalistic countries provided enough cheap food to the global market to transition their economies off of mass labor in fields (the basis of feudalism).
      - pasquinelli 4y ago
        > Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. didn't the ussr squeeze those farmers so tight to get industral equipment out of the capitalists by trading grain? yes, the capitalists graciously supported the ussr, the cold war was actually a big hug! because they traded with capitalist nations they couldn't have existed without capitalism. sure, actually that was the theory at the time, that industrialized germany would join them in a mutually beneficial relationship. that didn't happen for some reason. but what if we flip it? because capitalist nations traded with slave states and feudal nations, they couldn't have existed without slavery and feudalsim. because capitalist nations trade with violently repressive plutocracies, they can't exist without violently repressive plutocracy. seem fair? how were china and the ussr organized is the actual question. maybe you assume technological development was caused by capitalism. personally i think that's putting the cart before the horse.
        parineum 4y ago
        > that didn't happen for some reason. It was probably because they had to build a wall to keep the citizens of the territory they were occupying from escaping communism.
        thenewthotness 4y ago
        How anyone in this day can still support such blatantly despotic nations is a mystery to me. Even if you believe capitalist nations are equally authoritarian, which they clearly aren’t, then you’d still have to admit that they at least have the decency to conceal it by not having concentration camps, political and religious persecution, dictators for life or just straight up starving their populace.
    - shrubble 4y ago
      China:Four Pests campaign, other madness... total deaths over 40 million. Russia: purges, torture then murder of 'kulaks', Holodomor, Virgin Lands campaign, etc. Total deaths, estimate at least 30 million; Solzhenitsyn said 66 million. None of those combined 70 million+ made it out of poverty.
    - funcDropShadow 4y ago
      And e.g. eastern Germany build the Berlin wall to hold back the masses of western Germans that also wanted to be lifted out of poverty? /sarcasm off Or was it the other way around?
- rnk 4y ago
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    First one is def a tool you don't want to lose, especially if your party loses. Second sounds like both U.S. conservatives and liberals. Third like primitivists, and fourth like any status quo supporting bipartisan neo-con. As is,the probably attempted strawman does not work.
  - thenewthotness 4y ago
    The current crop of über wealth are supporters of the Democratic party. Radical environmentalists are probably the most anti modern people out there at the moment. I wouldn’t bring “keeping blacks down” into this considering the track record of Democrat policies and their impact on the black community.
- AntiRemoteWork 4y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ? You're insisting that "state representation" can only mean "representation of the people already elected by the voters", which is unjustifiably narrow. > enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. Do you recall the situation before this? > allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time. tricky to fight international wars without this, which obviously you could view as a plus.
- Empact 4y ago
  State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, as their power directly derives from it. Much of what the fœderal government does now to usurp state power is to simply bribe the states to change their policies (e.g. the drinking age, but many such examples). Would state reps willingly select senators who would bribe them to change their own policies?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, Bullshit. The smaller the democratic unit, the more likely it is to be unduly influenced by local power and wealth. State reps are far more likely to represent the interests of the local power and wealth than they are "their state" (by which I mean "the people of their state")
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ? Who’s their boss? At the moment senators answer to the people of a state, previously they answered to state government. This changes the reasoning of why we have laws at the federal level. The senators representing a state would be fired for giving up sovereignty; not so for those elected via popular vote. Those elected by popular vote are incentivized to give out goodies to the masses. State legislators could easily fire and switch senators. Public opinion on the senators didn’t matter nearly as much. If a person of a state wanted influence over the senators they had to focus on local elections. There’s a whole lot of changes, not really sure what’s being missed?
somenameforme 4y ago
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ There's another critical date: 1971. That was the year that Nixon ended the Bretton Woods System. [1] Bretton Woods was a defacto global* monetary system. Other currencies were pegged to the dollar and the dollar was convertible to gold at a fixed rate. This created a sort of soft backing to the dollar. After it ended the final constraint the 'government printing' (this is not an entirely accurate description of the process, but close enough for practical purposes) infinite money became a viable option; one which they have vigorously pursued since. The above link offers a number of fun graphs demonstrating the changes revolving about that date. When a federal government can go tens of trillions of dollars in debt, that absolutely destroys any sort of economic normalcy. Because they can offer what's, from their perspective, monopoly money for real services while the rest of the economy is forced to use real money. This applies not only to businesses, but also states - which are constrained by financial realities. I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
- scrlk 4y ago
  > I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market. I don't think it will completely blow up, but there will be enough economic pain inflicted such that the ordinary person will be happy to accept a central bank digital currency. The cogs are already turning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-principles-for-retail-central-bank-digital-currencies-and-g7-finance-ministers-and-central-bank-governors-statement-on-central-bank https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-...
  - lettergram 4y ago
    At this point, I think the US would not accept it. Half the country wants nothing to do with the federal government. If you visit places like South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Indiana, etc the people there are openly saying “prepare, the government is attacking us” Driving around the country you’ll see upside down American flags (meaning country in distress), gadsden flags, etc you’re much more likely going to get people to accept ETH then take over the org or something.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money The government was always able to do that. Independent central banking made it harder, not easier (that’s why independent central banking helps trust in the currency, because it divorces monetary from fiscal policy, and helping maintain trust in the currency is why you do it.)

bitwize 4y ago

Name the fucking enemy. Starts with a 'C' and ends in 'apitalism'. Read Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work. This is the way.

artificialLimbs 4y ago
I fully agree with lettergram and disagree with naming capitalism as an 'enemy'. How do you think you're going to reduce poverty and create wealth without capitalism?
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  the ussr and china both developed from feudalism without capitalism and lifted a huge number of people out of poverty. not advocating their system, (not not-advocating either), but they are counter examples.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    hmmm arguably capitalism was still required. Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. Further, their agricultural practices in general were learned from the capitalist countries and neither produced / produce enough. Both the USSR and China did / currently rely heavily on food imports. Arguably, they only escaped feudalism because capitalistic countries provided enough cheap food to the global market to transition their economies off of mass labor in fields (the basis of feudalism).
    - pasquinelli 4y ago
      > Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. didn't the ussr squeeze those farmers so tight to get industral equipment out of the capitalists by trading grain? yes, the capitalists graciously supported the ussr, the cold war was actually a big hug! because they traded with capitalist nations they couldn't have existed without capitalism. sure, actually that was the theory at the time, that industrialized germany would join them in a mutually beneficial relationship. that didn't happen for some reason. but what if we flip it? because capitalist nations traded with slave states and feudal nations, they couldn't have existed without slavery and feudalsim. because capitalist nations trade with violently repressive plutocracies, they can't exist without violently repressive plutocracy. seem fair? how were china and the ussr organized is the actual question. maybe you assume technological development was caused by capitalism. personally i think that's putting the cart before the horse.
      - parineum 4y ago
        > that didn't happen for some reason. It was probably because they had to build a wall to keep the citizens of the territory they were occupying from escaping communism.
      - thenewthotness 4y ago
        How anyone in this day can still support such blatantly despotic nations is a mystery to me. Even if you believe capitalist nations are equally authoritarian, which they clearly aren’t, then you’d still have to admit that they at least have the decency to conceal it by not having concentration camps, political and religious persecution, dictators for life or just straight up starving their populace.
  - shrubble 4y ago
    China:Four Pests campaign, other madness... total deaths over 40 million. Russia: purges, torture then murder of 'kulaks', Holodomor, Virgin Lands campaign, etc. Total deaths, estimate at least 30 million; Solzhenitsyn said 66 million. None of those combined 70 million+ made it out of poverty.
  - funcDropShadow 4y ago
    And e.g. eastern Germany build the Berlin wall to hold back the masses of western Germans that also wanted to be lifted out of poverty? /sarcasm off Or was it the other way around?
rnk 4y ago
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  First one is def a tool you don't want to lose, especially if your party loses. Second sounds like both U.S. conservatives and liberals. Third like primitivists, and fourth like any status quo supporting bipartisan neo-con. As is,the probably attempted strawman does not work.
- thenewthotness 4y ago
  The current crop of über wealth are supporters of the Democratic party. Radical environmentalists are probably the most anti modern people out there at the moment. I wouldn’t bring “keeping blacks down” into this considering the track record of Democrat policies and their impact on the black community.
AntiRemoteWork 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ? You're insisting that "state representation" can only mean "representation of the people already elected by the voters", which is unjustifiably narrow. > enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. Do you recall the situation before this? > allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time. tricky to fight international wars without this, which obviously you could view as a plus.

Empact 4y ago
State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, as their power directly derives from it. Much of what the fœderal government does now to usurp state power is to simply bribe the states to change their policies (e.g. the drinking age, but many such examples). Would state reps willingly select senators who would bribe them to change their own policies?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, Bullshit. The smaller the democratic unit, the more likely it is to be unduly influenced by local power and wealth. State reps are far more likely to represent the interests of the local power and wealth than they are "their state" (by which I mean "the people of their state")
lettergram 4y ago
> Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ? Who’s their boss? At the moment senators answer to the people of a state, previously they answered to state government. This changes the reasoning of why we have laws at the federal level. The senators representing a state would be fired for giving up sovereignty; not so for those elected via popular vote. Those elected by popular vote are incentivized to give out goodies to the masses. State legislators could easily fire and switch senators. Public opinion on the senators didn’t matter nearly as much. If a person of a state wanted influence over the senators they had to focus on local elections. There’s a whole lot of changes, not really sure what’s being missed?

somenameforme 4y ago

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ There's another critical date: 1971. That was the year that Nixon ended the Bretton Woods System. [1] Bretton Woods was a defacto global* monetary system. Other currencies were pegged to the dollar and the dollar was convertible to gold at a fixed rate. This created a sort of soft backing to the dollar. After it ended the final constraint the 'government printing' (this is not an entirely accurate description of the process, but close enough for practical purposes) infinite money became a viable option; one which they have vigorously pursued since. The above link offers a number of fun graphs demonstrating the changes revolving about that date. When a federal government can go tens of trillions of dollars in debt, that absolutely destroys any sort of economic normalcy. Because they can offer what's, from their perspective, monopoly money for real services while the rest of the economy is forced to use real money. This applies not only to businesses, but also states - which are constrained by financial realities. I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

scrlk 4y ago
> I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market. I don't think it will completely blow up, but there will be enough economic pain inflicted such that the ordinary person will be happy to accept a central bank digital currency. The cogs are already turning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-principles-for-retail-central-bank-digital-currencies-and-g7-finance-ministers-and-central-bank-governors-statement-on-central-bank https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-...
- lettergram 4y ago
  At this point, I think the US would not accept it. Half the country wants nothing to do with the federal government. If you visit places like South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Indiana, etc the people there are openly saying “prepare, the government is attacking us” Driving around the country you’ll see upside down American flags (meaning country in distress), gadsden flags, etc you’re much more likely going to get people to accept ETH then take over the org or something.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money The government was always able to do that. Independent central banking made it harder, not easier (that’s why independent central banking helps trust in the currency, because it divorces monetary from fiscal policy, and helping maintain trust in the currency is why you do it.)