All it takes is for the executive to think it doesn't have to obey the courts, and for a craven Congress to shrug its shoulders.
I wonder at what point someone in the military feels they have to intervene, because it's kinda starting to look like that is what it would take.
Or does it only need something to get to the Supreme Court and for it to say "executive, no, you can't ignore the courts, if you want constitutional government"?
The trouble with that is, if it is a majority statement, with a few of the corrupt MAGA supporters not joining in, Trump and Vance would likely say its an illegitimate, political, decision.
As for the matter of the ease of constitutional crisis, I guess some Australian readers would say "well, the sacking of Whitlam was easy too." Which is true. But compared to the possible problems of how to deal with a rogue President in the US, our system at least democratically resolved it quickly and neatly.
Update: When even the Wall Street Journal is putting out videos asking if the country is in a constitutional crisis, you know it is getting pretty serious...
15 comments:
He still hasn't done anything about the cost of living, housing, and labour shortages. So much of this has a distraction squirrel quality to it. Trump knows little about everything so I'm not surprised he doesn't see the constitutional issues but Vance should know better.
There is no crisis. The court can make its judgement. Andrew Jackson can thank them for their judgement, and explain why he disagrees. Now that’s a fact. And Trump and his legal team can do the same.
How many artillery divisions does the Supreme Court have? These are co-equal branches. The court DOES NOT hold rank.
You fucking moron. He went to work on that with spending cuts day one. John there is something ficking wrong with you. Reducing the deficit is stopping the rise in cost of living.
The other thing you could do is arrest Larry Fink and sell off Blackrock assets. But reducing the deficit is what you need to do for cost of living issues first.
You idiot, the deficit is so large and the savings to date so small there is no impact on COL. Learn some Econ moron.
I fucking had an economics degree when I was 19 you moron. Now you can glut the middle rise housing market, you can apply antitrust to break up all these massive asset holders, but the first thing to do is slash spending and that’s an all hands on deck affair. Every dollar counts.
The authority fallacy is for weaklings. Economics is a woeful discipline, incapable of making predictions and littered with ridiculous assumptions. You chose the wrong degree idiot. Business people I know regard economists with contempt. Your behavior explains that. Your the type of dumbass who thinks he has solutions for everything. That's why you have achieved nothing.
Economics is good if you actually understand it doofus. You could nationalise and expand the railways and revive water transport around the Great Lakes area. You could make the rivers navigateable and build more wharves. You could glut the grid with nuclear power.
But while all these can cut costs they take time and money. So again the first step to dealing with living costs is cutting spending. ALWAYS. No exceptions ever.
The deficit is so large don’t cut it because it doesn’t matter any more. See logically the larger it is the more you need to cut. But if you are a tax eater a logic fail becomes mandatory at this point.
The deficit is so large and savings rates are so small there is no need to create loanable funds with real resources behind them any more; the anti economics of John.
Your argument assumes governments can run the economy. The wealth concentration is now so extreme governments and we peons are at the behest of the oligarchy. Using interest rates to control money supply results in investors raking in dosh and the cost of living and mortgages blowing ouit. The cuts to date are nowhere near sufficient. They have to slash welfare spending. Take USAID, that's chump change for the USA government.
Deficit spending is out of line so the idea is to reduce deficit spending. Wealth inequality is out of line so you want to reduce wealth inequality. One of these has finally come within the Overton window and the other has yet to. The situation may seem hopeless and probably is. But it’s not okay to simply run from either problem. If you do then your out of the game.
You are right that using interest rates is not sound monetary policy. It’s a looting operation. And if anyone were to get tough on runaway monetary growth using interest rates it would amount to sado-monetarism.
There are only two (2) valid demand management methods. Not 3, not 4, only two and fiscal ill-rectitude is not one of them.
If you want to increase demand you retire debt with new cash creation. If you want to reduce demand you must establish and increase the reserve asset ratio of the banks. That’s it. Any other methods are not effective and a form of theft or bad management or both.
Getting rid of the interest rate subsidy to the banks is part of reducing wealth inequality. Trump floated an interest rate cap of 10%. I would drop it 1% every year down to 3% and after some time get rid of compound interest in its entirety. And if there was a recession I would want an interest moratorium. The banks cause recessions. They need to pay the price when they come around. Not the rest of us.
The deep state doesn’t seem to warn or try to intimidate leaders that set about limiting the amount of fractional reserve looting. They just try and kill them.
Andrew Jackson, Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln, Kennedy, Alexander II of Russia, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Harold Holt, Gaddafi.
So it’s never really been about winning the intellectual case important as that is. You need to stay alive and implement the reforms.
But here is one fish that got away: According to AI::
Andrew Fisher, Australia's 5th Prime Minister, played a crucial role in shaping the country's banking system. His government introduced the Commonwealth Bank of Australia through the Commonwealth Bank Act in 1911, which allowed the bank to issue notes and exclude private banks' notes ¹. This move was a significant step towards a nationalized banking system and reduced the power of private banks.
Fisher's banking reforms were part of his broader agenda to promote social and economic equality. He believed in the importance of a strong public sector and implemented various policies to support workers' rights, pensions, and social welfare.
Regarding London's actions, it's worth noting that Fisher's government faced opposition from the British government and financial interests. During the Imperial Conference in 1911, Fisher pushed for greater autonomy for the Dominions, including Australia, but was met with resistance from British officials ¹. Although there isn't direct evidence of London's involvement in trying to defeat Fisher, it's clear that his government's policies and reforms were not aligned with British interests.
Fisher's legacy in Australian politics is significant, and his banking reforms laid the groundwork for the country's modern financial system.
After further questioning A I says this:
That's a crucial detail. Yes, it appears that Andrew Fisher's government did implement a policy of direct cash release through the Commonwealth Bank, bypassing private banks.
During Fisher's premiership, the Commonwealth Bank was authorized to issue notes directly, rather than through private banks. This allowed the government to inject money into the economy through government spending, without relying on private banks to create new money through fractional reserve lending.
By bypassing private banks, Fisher's government reduced their ability to profit from the creation of new money. This approach also gave the government more control over the money supply and allowed for more direct stimulation of the economy.
It's fascinating to note that this approach was quite innovative and progressive for its time. Fisher's policy initiatives in this area were likely influenced by his Labor Party's commitment to social and economic reform. …….
That is so awesome. It would have changed everything. My new hero Andrew Fisher.
Post a Comment