That’s different. That money is the federal reserve printing, well, money and exchanging it for existing securities. They can always get money back in exchange for those securities if there is money oversupply. It is reversible.
When federal government spends more money than it has, there is no reverse mechanism, because the government does not get securities in exchange of new money it introduced to economy.
I am not quite sure how big the impact of it is on inflation. I thought even before, banks could just go and take cash from federal reserve (borrow), essentially unlimited amount and that counted as reserve. So, from practical point of view, if they saw that they can lend the money with foot risk/benefit profile, they could always do that. And they would not have to pay rate for the money which is in reserve. So, not quite sure if inflation depends on this much.
Yes, that's what the high fed rate means - they are taking it back, but because it was combination of the what Federal Reserve printed and the USGov "printed", there is disbalance, and the rates end up too high, thus inflation.
I have seen enough shooting videos to say that this is not true. The sound even using phone should be much louder. Not as lows as in real life, but loud and echo should be heard for quite some time.
I seriously think that being drug use enabler is not a good thing. If you know that particular homeless person has drugs problem better buy him a sandwich or give warm clothes than give money.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
They are making compromises (that you have not approved) as result of forming coalition. Democrats do not have to do those compromises - if they are in power - they are in power. The compromises were done at voting booth by you.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Yes, exactly! But the difference is WHO is making the compromise. You, as a voter, or not. Maybe I like pro-business party but would never, ever vote for party that want to push religion into high school. In US, I will just not vote republican, because I can not make this compromise. But, in other countries, I may vote for pro-business party which then enters into coalition with religious party, and I can not take my vote back. And even in the next election I would not know if pro-business party will end up in coalition with religious party.
Or same for right wing.
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions.
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party...
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again
Multiparty system offers much better option to vote for, but then there is only one coalition. So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions” that you mention, but here, they are talking directly to voters, as opposed to each other. Again, I see advantage of two party system here.
I believe that bad perception of two party system is because now, we truly have two camps in our culture - the society is broken in two, cohesiveness is lost. But it is not because of the two party system, it is the opposite: because of this cultural break it propagated, “mirrored” into our politics. But it is exactly how it supposed to work in representative democracy. It would be strange if we had this cultural problem and our politicians would not.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
For the purpose of our discussion, it nearly does not matter how they come up with the platform before you vote. What matters is what happens after your choice. Whether your choice can be overwritten by necessity to create coalition. The voter becomes more removed from the policy of the ruling coalition than from the party in two party system.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system.
What is good and bad is not 51% seats, but the 49% of opposition. In situation when you have multi-party system and 51% are in hands of one party, it does not mean that you have 49% of strong opposition! Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed. Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing. It is weak. Not so for two party system. 51% is barely majority.
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off...
I am not saying they do not do any compromises. I am saying they do not have to do EXTRA compromises to form coalition. And those compromises could be particularly great.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power "more honest". This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
That depends where you live, what your cultural upbringing is. If you are from Russia, sure. There, it is a myth, and democracy is something to scare people by.
So then you agree that it is not gay for a woman to like girlcock (maybe it is not straight either, but importantly it is not gay). Checkmate returned :)
Nothing beats collection of beer/cola can's pull tabs for recycling competition at schools. That forces children to ask parents to buy more of the six packs so that they could have the tabs.
Well, I am traveling forward in time in home made Time Machine with the speed of one second per second. I do not see any problem you are describing. Now I just need to add the reverse, but I do not expect any issues of this kind either.
Government money (lemmy.zip)
the best feeling (mander.xyz)
Humanities be like (mander.xyz)
Slavery: still a thing (lemmy.zip)
Palestinian girl filming Israeli soldiers gets shot at in the West Bank (streamable.com)
So let me refer to my “stop using antisemitic words” chart…...
Poverty isn't a flaw its a feature. (lemmy.ml)
Two Party System. Why. (lemmy.zip)
EDIT: To the people downvoting this post because democrats > republicans: you’re missing the point.
Dont (lemmy.ml)
Gone with the Blastwave #1 (lemmy.world)
www.blastwave-comic.com/index.php?p=comic&nro…...
Bazinga (lemmy.ml)
Can we kiss now?
18+ Relatable or do I just have filthy friends? (lemmy.world)
Plane goes brrrr (pawb.social)
Why there are no time travelers. (mander.xyz)