We are not the government

1. 72

   innersmiffposted 5 years ago

   Recent events in the US should give those with the belief that the government is an accurate representation of the people pause for thought. But, even if these institutions were benign, they have never been representative of us.
   
   The President is chosen by the majority, which is usually something like 48% of the vote, which is something like 24% of the populace of voting age. Half of those actually hold to the ideals of the candidate, the other half voting either out of tradition or on the basis that ‘the other guy would be worse’. So that’s 12%. It’s very rare that you’d find someone who agrees 100% with a candidate’s policy, but let’s be generous and grant 1% of those in ideological support that voted believe whole heartedly with every single thing the president believes in. That means the President represents 0.12% of the population, at the very very very best. Copy that for each representative and you’ve got hundreds of politicians elected based on 0.12% whole-hearted popular support. And that’s not counting corporate influence and rigged elections.
   
   But honestly, there are government institutions that will simply never represent us. The Federal Reserve will not submit to any moderate audit of its activities, let alone congressional oversight. And this is an institution that controls the currency, interest rates and regulates the banking industry. Shouldn’t this be the number one thing that needs congressional oversight, next to the military? Speaking of the military, that too is a semi-independent corporation that is very difficult to reign in. There are too many special interests involved that makes any kind of peace-making almost impossible. Finally, recent events have shown us that even the IRS is basically acting as a rogue institute.
   
   Have you got anything more compelling than “it sucks, but it’s a necessary evil”?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Innersmiff, I remind you that in your own country (the UK) things are even worse. Not for many years have we had a truly representative PM ( who is not elected by the voters anyway, but by a select few in government).

      replyreport
      1. 72

         innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Doesn't this put to question the vary nature of democracy?

         replyreport
   2. 98

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, the Fed does not need congressional oversight any more than the military does.  Politicians are ignorant of both subjects, and that's a major problem, but the biggest objection is that their motive is NOT to run the country as best they can.  It is to maintain and grow their power, to get votes from their constituency, and that seldom equates to what the country needs.
      
      Give them control over the fed and the only thing it will accomplish is increase the politicians power while bankrupting the country.  This recession isn't due to the feds and it isn't due to evil banksters; it is from politicians interfering in economic policies to get more votes.
      
      Give them control over the military and it will result in certain states getting more military spending at the cost of others and in destroying what military we have.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         What makes you think the Fed and the military are also not out to seek power?
         
         I'm equally skeptical of politicians' ability to effectively direct the economy, but it's not necessarily because they're just out to get votes. Central planning, whether through government control or monopoly central bank control, can only inhibit economic growth. However, at least with congressional oversight, the Fed would be accountable to someone. As it is, the Fed is neither at the mercy of politicians or consumers. We are not allowed to use different currencies, making us completely open to manipulation. This is exactly what is happening. The Fed inflates and distorts the market to such a degree that we are left poorer and less-free.
         
         We don't need an independent, all-powerful Fed, we need no Fed at all.
         
         The same applies to the military. Ideally, only private contractors would exist, but I would accept better public and political scrutiny of the current military so that some power can be taken back. At the moment what we have is a war-making behemoth that is accountable to no-one.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We don't have the Fed! It's a US institution.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               We have a central bank with the same problems in principle, and the whole world is affected by the Fed's policies. An irrelevant point.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, you do make an irrelevant point.

                  replyreport