But war is peace, my friend.
Time for a Heinlein Quote: "Peace is an extension of war by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter — and much safer."
Why do you hate the free market?Santander Consumer USAWowza
:)
Even I think fraud should be vigorously prosecuted. I hope they get crushed in the class action, but I'm not hopeful. Too bad we helped bail these DBs out. Shouldn't one of our multi billion dollar bureaucracies be looking into this?
But war is peace, my friend.Time for a Heinlein Quote: "Peace is an extension of Kinetic Use of Military-Humanitarian Efforts to Enforce a No-Fly Zone by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter — and much safer."
FIFY
Even I think fraud should be vigorously prosecuted. I hope they get crushed in the class action, but I'm not hopeful. Too bad we helped bail these DBs out. Shouldn't one of our multi billion dollar bureaucracies be looking into this?You mean the evil big-government regulators?
I'd guess this falls under the new Consumer Protection Agency, which has been impotent since it's creation since the Republicans refused to allow the appointment of anyone to head it. They didn't object to a particular candidate, mind you, but made it clear they wouldn't allow anyone. The President finally made a controversial recess appointment a couple weeks ago.
its stuff like this that needs to be reported more.
How stringent.
FIFYBut war is peace, my friend.Time for a Heinlein Quote: "Peace is an extension of Kinetic Use of Military-Humanitarian Efforts to Enforce a No-Fly Zone by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter — and much safer."
its stuff like this that needs to be reported more.
Even I think fraud should be vigorously prosecuted. I hope they get crushed in the class action, but I'm not hopeful. Too bad we helped bail these DBs out. Shouldn't one of our multi billion dollar bureaucracies be looking into this?You mean the evil big-government regulators?
I'd guess this falls under the new Consumer Protection Agency, which has been impotent since it's creation since the Republicans refused to allow the appointment of anyone to head it. They didn't object to a particular candidate, mind you, but made it clear they wouldn't allow anyone. The President finally made a controversial recess appointment a couple weeks ago.
Well you know how that liberal mainstream media is -- they aren't going to tell you when the liberals are doing something wrong. Why if a conservative was holding up all the president's nominations instead of allowing a nice smooth up or down vote, well I'm sure we would hear all about it in short order.
</what?>
How stringent.FIFYBut war is peace, my friend.Time for a Heinlein Quote: "Peace is an extension of Kinetic Use of Military-Humanitarian Efforts to Enforce a No-Fly Zone by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter — and much safer."
Indeed. that was the point. We, as a society, no longer call "war" war, we make up names for it to make it seem like a good thing. We no longer call "limited liability corporations" by what they are. We make up names for them to make them seem like a good thing.
Even I think fraud should be vigorously prosecuted. I hope they get crushed in the class action, but I'm not hopeful. Too bad we helped bail these DBs out. Shouldn't one of our multi billion dollar bureaucracies be looking into this?You mean the evil big-government regulators?
I'd guess this falls under the new Consumer Protection Agency, which has been impotent since it's creation since the Republicans refused to allow the appointment of anyone to head it. They didn't object to a particular candidate, mind you, but made it clear they wouldn't allow anyone. The President finally made a controversial recess appointment a couple weeks ago.
Gosh it's too bad that there aren't a bunch of other multi billion dollar bureaucracies already empowered to look at this.
Oh wait there are.
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
I think I figured out the major problem I have with the supposed conservative party's platform that government doesn't work:
It's the fact I got this guy that wants me to elect him telling me the thing he wants me to elect him for doesn't work, and that we should have something else do the job.
It would be like me trying to get hired by telling my employer that the job can't be done, and he should put me in charge of making sure it doesn't happen.
Good counters. Your response, bt?
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
That's not what the law says, and the practice of the endless pro forma session started in a Democrat senate as a check on the power of a Republican president.
I'm in favor of congress pushing back against executive power in general; I think the legislative branch has surrendered far to much power.
It doesn't surprise me that media largely ignored this unconstitutional power grab, but it's typical.
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
I think I figured out the major problem I have with the supposed conservative party's platform that government doesn't work:
It's the fact I got this guy that wants me to elect him telling me the thing he wants me to elect him for doesn't work, and that we should have something else do the job.
It would be like me trying to get hired by telling my employer that the job can't be done, and he should put me in charge of making sure it doesn't happen.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
How do you propose we shrink the size and scope of a corrupt and incompetent state outside of the political process?
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
I think I figured out the major problem I have with the supposed conservative party's platform that government doesn't work:
It's the fact I got this guy that wants me to elect him telling me the thing he wants me to elect him for doesn't work, and that we should have something else do the job.
It would be like me trying to get hired by telling my employer that the job can't be done, and he should put me in charge of making sure it doesn't happen.
If that would be what they did, I would be happy. My major problem with the so-called conservative party is that they say they are for balanced budgets and limiting the scope of government while running, then pretty much do the exact opposite once in office.
That's not what the law says, and the practice of the endless pro forma session started in a Democrat senate as a check on the power of a Republican president.
Law doesn't trump the constitution, and neither do mere rules of the senate. After 8 years of whining "up or down vote!" I don't want to hear smack from republicans about putting someone into the position. Democrats would have gladly let some non nutcases sit on the federal benches, they weren't trying to end the judiciary.
If congress didn't want this bureaucracy to exist then they shouldn't have voted it into existence in the first place.
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
I think I figured out the major problem I have with the supposed conservative party's platform that government doesn't work:
It's the fact I got this guy that wants me to elect him telling me the thing he wants me to elect him for doesn't work, and that we should have something else do the job.
It would be like me trying to get hired by telling my employer that the job can't be done, and he should put me in charge of making sure it doesn't happen.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
How do you propose we shrink the size and scope of a corrupt and incompetent state outside of the political process?
The glib reply? Take the republicans out of it.
You can hardly trust the guy that says the system is corrupt, broken and unworkable to try and make it anything else. His faith is already removed from the process and he doesn't want it to work and has no reason to prove himself wrong. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: "Hire me because the system doesn't work. See the system doesn't work I told you so."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corporate malfeasance!
Election threads are elsewhere in abundance!
This message brought to you by the Evil Holographic Ex-Presidents For America.
That's not what the law says, and the practice of the endless pro forma session started in a Democrat senate as a check on the power of a Republican president.Law doesn't trump the constitution, and neither do mere rules of the senate. After 8 years of whining "up or down vote!" I don't want to hear smack from republicans about putting someone into the position. Democrats would have gladly let some non nutcases sit on the federal benches, they weren't trying to end the judiciary.
If congress didn't want this bureaucracy to exist then they shouldn't have voted it into existence in the first place.
The constitution is the law in question here. The senate was in session at the time of this appointment therefore the the "recess appointment" didn't happen when congress was in recess therefore the appointment is not constitutional. That is the entire point of the pro forma session an idea that Obama supported when he was a senator. It's naked hypocrisy and contempt for the constitution, and both sides are guilty of it.
Also the consumer protection bureaucracy set up by Dodd/Frank was set up to be basically self funding so it's hard to stop it by simply not allocating funds for it.
The narrative of Republican obstructionism is also pretty weak when the Democrat controlled Senate is where bills go to die. It was largely the same when Obama was a US senator too.
By and large I don't have an issue with legislative obstructionism. I see it as an important check on the bloated power of the executive, but the endless demagoguery and hypocrisy by both sides is tedious.
BTW, it's not a recess appointment when the Senate is in session.
Place looked empty to me.
I think I figured out the major problem I have with the supposed conservative party's platform that government doesn't work:
It's the fact I got this guy that wants me to elect him telling me the thing he wants me to elect him for doesn't work, and that we should have something else do the job.
It would be like me trying to get hired by telling my employer that the job can't be done, and he should put me in charge of making sure it doesn't happen.
That's an odd way of looking at it.
How do you propose we shrink the size and scope of a corrupt and incompetent state outside of the political process?
The glib reply? Take the republicans out of it.
You can hardly trust the guy that says the system is corrupt, broken and unworkable to try and make it anything else. His faith is already removed from the process and he doesn't want it to work and has no reason to prove himself wrong. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: "Hire me because the system doesn't work. See the system doesn't work I told you so."
Then my glib reply is that the Democrats who think that even more massive and invasive bureaucracy is the answer to every problem are even less qualified to address the massive failings of the bureaucracy that they idolize.
Of course these glib simplifications are of limited value. Republicans often embrace wasteful, stupid, unconstitutional spending when it lines up with their "values", while Democrats seem to believe deeply in state power and bureaucracy as a force for good they have hardly shaped it into a model of efficiency and equity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The constitution is the law in question here. The senate was in session at the time of this appointment therefore the the "recess appointment" didn't happen when congress was in recess therefore the appointment is not constitutional. That is the entire point of the pro forma session an idea that Obama supported when he was a senator. It's naked hypocrisy and contempt for the constitution, and both sides are guilty of it.
Ok, so whats the problem? Both sides are cheating to the point that the law is irrelevant. We now have someone in charge of the agency and the agency can do what the law requires it to do.This is only a bad thing if you don't like the agency.
Also the consumer protection bureaucracy set up by Dodd/Frank was set up to be basically self funding so it's hard to stop it by simply not allocating funds for it.
You could simply vote it out of existence. But oh.. wait.. people overwhelmingly want some sort of insight over the wallstreet shenanigans that crashed the economy. The agency is something that is both the will of the people and a good idea, so i'm fine with anything that gets it working.
The narrative of Republican obstructionism is also pretty weak when the Democrat controlled Senate is where bills go to die. It was largely the same when Obama was a US senator too.
You mean the senate where the republicans are on permanent filibuster?
End the rule allowing for a pro forma filibuster. Someone wants to hold up the bill I want to see a senator on stage for 12 hours reading a phone book.
By and large I don't have an issue with legislative obstructionism. I see it as an important check on the bloated power of the executive, but the endless demagoguery and hypocrisy by both sides is tedious.
And I'm tired of equating different magnitudes of offenses. The republicans are like cartman from south park vs Kyle. Yes, Kyle shouldn't have called cartman fat. Cartman also shouldn't have injected Kyle with aids. Both are equally wrong, now apologize.
Bush got over 90% of his Judges in, the democrats held up 10% of them. "No, pick someone else" is NOT the same thing as "We're not letting you pick ANYONE"
Then my glib reply is that the Democrats who think that even more massive and invasive bureaucracy is the answer to every problem are even less qualified to address the massive failings of the bureaucracy that they idolize.
Of course these glib simplifications are of limited value. Republicans often embrace wasteful, stupid, unconstitutional spending when it lines up with their "values", while Democrats seem to believe deeply in state power and bureaucracy as a force for good they have hardly shaped it into a model of efficiency and equity.
It occurs to me it's the Republicans that spent how many of the last 10 years adding new departments? Not the Democrats. I would also suggest that perhaps if the Democrats are left to fix things the government might actually work again -- since you know they have an interest in seeing that it does.
But I agree glib statements aren't really fruitful for honest debates, and that old evil dead codger has a point about what this particular thread is supposed to be about.
Then my glib reply is that the Democrats who think that even more massive and invasive bureaucracy is the answer to every problem are even less qualified to address the massive failings of the bureaucracy that they idolize.
Of course these glib simplifications are of limited value. Republicans often embrace wasteful, stupid, unconstitutional spending when it lines up with their "values", while Democrats seem to believe deeply in state power and bureaucracy as a force for good they have hardly shaped it into a model of efficiency and equity.
It occurs to me it's the Republicans that spent how many of the last 10 years adding new departments? Not the Democrats. I would also suggest that perhaps if the Democrats are left to fix things the government might actually work again -- since you know they have an interest in seeing that it does.
But I agree glib statements aren't really fruitful for honest debates, and that old evil dead codger has a point about what this particular thread is supposed to be about.
Clearly I disagree, but I do think I'm the one who drug the thread off topic again. Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my bit as well.
So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:
1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?
and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my bit as well.
So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:
1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?
1. No
2. No (a corollary of #1)3. Legal responsibility shouldn't be assigned to a corporation, but to its agents (typically management, but not always).
4. Get corporate money out of politics. Along with #2, above, anyone who holds public office cannot be a lobbyist or political consultant for a period of 10 years or twice the period span spent in office, whichever is greater. Not a cure-all, but a good start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my bit as well.
So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:
1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?
Good questions
My two cents1. Sure, why not? (see #4)
2. As long as its clearly labeled as a political statement and not broadcast as being journalism on like say, I dunno, a 24 hour cable news network, I'd have no problem with it.
3. This is tricky. Ideally, the chief executive should be held responsible for all illegality that knowingly occurs on his watch. As has been stated upthread, corporate malfeasance seems to be a systemic problem that ensues from corporate culture more than anything else. Perhaps doing this would change that culture, but even if corporations are not people, the executive most certinly is, which would inevitably lead to some very unconstitutional activity by the state. So short answer: Chief executive, most of the time
4. The Wal-mart way: No gifts for law makers. Lobbying shall consist of the written word or speech and nothing more, no corporate paid vacations, gifts, sweetheart stock deals, or post-political job offers. An ethics committee should be established, well paid and not staffed by the law-makers themselves. All laws passed should also effect the law-makers themselves. (that takes care of insider trading information being part of the lobbying, incidently) Finally, a non competition agreement as Bugleyman, above, but with the added provision that any regulator (and immediate family) that comes from the business that (s)he seeks to regulate must immediately sell off any and all stock or other interest in said business before stepping into office.
An ethics committee should be established, well paid and not staffed by the law-makers themselves.
To follow up on this, Ron Paul is right when he says that ethics reform has been tried, and was useless in reducing corruption -- because people who lack ethics never follow the "reformed" rules any better than they followed the previous set.
He failed to take the next step, though, and look at what might happen if the ethics violations actually had felony sentences attached to them. Suddenly we might find ethics reform to be a lot more useful. To my mind, though, nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would pack enough oomph at this point to prevent lawmakers from ignoring it and claiming immunity from prosecution.
He failed to take the next step, though, and look at what might happen if the ethics violations actually had felony sentences attached to them. Suddenly we might find ethics reform to be a lot more useful. To my mind, though, nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would pack enough oomph at this point to prevent lawmakers from ignoring it and claiming immunity from prosecution.
Hello, we'd like you all to make the thing you're doing that makes you millions of dollars illegal.
... why are they laughing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, we'd like you all to make the thing you're doing that makes you millions of dollars illegal.
The bill itself would be entitled "Saving Our Children from the Evil Pedophile Sex Offenders (TM) Lurking Behind Every Corner." Anyone who opposed it would be accused of throwing children to the wolves. Anyone who opposed it would obviously be "soft on crime." The entire Republican party would kill your cat for not supporting it.
The part about conflict of interest for being in the corporations' pockets? That would be on page 346, Subsection 68, paragraph 2(C)(iii).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bill itself would be entitled "Saving Our Children from the Evil Pedophile Sex Offenders (TM) Lurking Behind Every Corner."
It dies in committee. Each party publicly accuses the other of being the reason it can't pass the rules committee.
Anyone who opposed it would be accused of throwing children to the wolves.
Which is unfair, really. Because wolves are REALLY good at catching, but you always wind up with at least a few teeth marks..
The part about conflict of interest for being in the corporations' pockets? That would be on page 346, Subsection 68, paragraph 2(C)(iii).
I see your page 346, Subsection 68, paragraph 2 with a "blind trust" and raise you a shady real estate deal where i rerout a railroad through land i own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is unfair, really. Because wolves are REALLY good at catching, but you always wind up with at least a few teeth marks..
Just what I would expect from such an obvious Wolf lobbyist ;p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my bit as well.
So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:
1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?
1) Not unless the entire board of directors and the stockholders can be held personally responsible and punished, including jail time, for any crimes the corporation commits in their interest.
2) Yes but they should be limited to the same rules and regulations that a single individual is limited to. This means no anonymous donations or hidding behind PACs or other shells intended to hide corporate money.
3) See answer 1.
4) Bring back the draconian antitrust rules of the 40s and 50s. No corporation can hold more than a 20% market share in any area of production or service. Corporations can only donate funds to national political parties and are capped at $10,000 annually.
Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another reason to not use AT&T -- I mean if you can get past the non-existent service and inability to place/receive a call.
Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.
Regulatory capture (particularly the "studies" about fracking) makes my blood boil. That is not government by and for the people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regulatory capture (particularly the "studies" about fracking) makes my blood boil. That is not government by and for the people.Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.
The worst part? Try to stop it, and you are against business and free market.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
well, i suppose you could always throw fracking water on the CEO's, light it on fire, and then watch them sputter because they can't accuse you of assault with a deadly weapon without admitting that the water is deadly...
More on the unintended consequences of GMO organisms.
More on the unintended consequences of GMO organisms.
Isn't it a part of secret plot to mutate humankind into flavor more appropriate to tastes of Alien Overlords after their inevitable invasion within the next ten thousand years or so?
not really. Dont really think its a plot to do anything. I think it was an unintended consequence, but instead of actually admitting that its a bad idea, they believe the answer is to continue doing the same thing only BIGGER.
not really. Dont really think its a plot to do anything. I think it was an unintended consequence, but instead of actually admitting that its a bad idea, they believe the answer is to continue doing the same thing only BIGGER.
*facepalm!*
Tale from a Den of Evil (tm) escapee
Did I already mention that a GS team engineered for the greek the clever financial system that enabled them to cook the books for years, that the girl that headed it got promoted as VP for Europe afterwards, and that said bank is strongly suspected of placing bets against Greece through "black pools", to gorge itself when said house of cards came crashing down, triggering a worldwide crisis?
Where are drones when you need them ? (just kidding; WP is better)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst part? Try to stop it, and you are against business and free market.Regulatory capture (particularly the "studies" about fracking) makes my blood boil. That is not government by and for the people.Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.
I wish more people were aware and educated about regulatory capture. It is one of the singular reasons why the bureaucracy isn't working--because the corporations have co-opted it.
However, I feel the answer isn't to dismantle the bureaucracy but rather to erect a strict ruleset in which people who participate and fund regulatory capture are hunted for sport.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst part? Try to stop it, and you are against business and free market.Regulatory capture (particularly the "studies" about fracking) makes my blood boil. That is not government by and for the people.Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.
I wish more people were aware and educated about regulatory capture. It is one of the singular reasons why the bureaucracy isn't working--because the corporations have co-opted it.
However, I feel the answer isn't to dismantle the bureaucracy but rather to erect a strict ruleset in which people who participate and fund regulatory capture are hunted for sport.
Sounds too harsh : for due process' sake, they should be given a butter knife to defend themselves.
Ah, politrolling, you are my only friend.
I apologize for my bit as well.
So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:
1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?
1) No
Unfortunately they are citizens by virtue of 150 years of judicial practice. The state of Montana has very strict rules, built in to their constitution, regarding what a corporation can actually do as a participant in government. The rest of the country needs to look at the Montana model.2)Yes
While my heart says no, I'm realistic in my view that there is no way to actually prevent it. As a deterrent to rampant political spending via Super PACS and other anonymous policy entities; I'd propose a special tax on political spending by corporations.
1000% on all political contributions, non-deferred and fully disclosed. I would not exempt lobbying as an expense. If these corporations wish to "participate" in government at their current levels they should be willing to pick up part of the bill.
This model is potentially silly, however from my casual observations on political spending in the financial sector the big players would have to seriously weigh the benefits of excessive lobbying and backdoor contributions. It MAY actually allow us to lower the corporate tax rate in a meaningful way that would effect small companies and struggling startups while leveling the playing field for actual competition in some sectors.
3)Theoretically, if corporations are citizens, they should be held to all of the same laws that we are. If a factory or production facility poisons the ground water and gives 50 people terminal cancer, they should be tried for negligent homicide. To my knowledge this has never happened in this country.
The issue faced by District Prosecuters, aside from the fact that their reelection is likely financed by the culprit, is that there is no current legal model for assigning blame or culpability within a corporate structure for capital crimes. The enormous push for "Tort Reform"'over the last 30 years has led to a system where criminal charges are virtually impossible to level against a corporate body. Corporations can be sued in civil court, and even that option has been effectively neutered.
FWIW I believe that the CEO, both sitting and recent ( within a period of 5 years) should be held liable for criminal behavior. This is the downside of the massive salaries that CEO's seem to make. The buck has to stop somewhere and the only viable way to make any real change in the culture of indifference in our current corporate structures is to hold the top guy accountable.
One of the declines of American industry is the current migratory nature of top managers. When my dad graduated college, he went to work for Weyerhauser, he stayed with them as a motivated team player for 34 years. My grandfather spent 27 years with Honeywell, my other grandfater spent 28 years in the Air Force. These types of tenure just don't happen anymore. It is no longer considered a solid choice to groom, train and invest in personell, it is far better to poach from your competitors via head hunters. This robs corporations of the sense of pride that once infused the bulk of their workforce.
As a side effect, or perhaps the root cause, once criminal malfeasance is uncovered in a company the managers and directors that are responsible have moved on to greener pastures. So all that's left to go after is the faceless corporation. How this is handled is a truly complex problem.
4) If you figure this out, I'll go door to door to get you elected.
The sad truth and the inevitable outcome is; WE HAVE TO LET THEM TANK. The next time that we have a financial meltdown, We have to suck it up and watch them implode with all of the horrible consequences that come with it.
The level of corruption, the systemic indifference and the general stacking of the deck means that there is no other viable hope to solve our problems. We live in a society where the general population has no idea of how rigged the system actually is. The most visible sources of information are in fact modern American versions of the old Soviet Polit Bureau. To solve that you need to have an actual collapse. That's antithetical to common sense but it's at the very least historically sound.
Our current woes are superficially similar to the 1920's. We have a staggering wealth disparity, political corruption that is checked by incompetence, an indifferent population and entrenched corporate oligarchs who have stifled competition and innovation. The world economy is in a stall and the gloomy places on the map are in the midst of cultural revolutions. The world, as a whole, needs change, it's begging for it. Change is hard, evolution is ugly. At present, I see nothing in the American electorate that is ready to avoid that reality, we may fight it off for a few more years in token fashions but the willingness to recreate ourselves the way our most outstanding forefathers did in the wake of WWII or the American Revolution or the painful adjustments in social evolutions of the 60's is just not present in a widely tangible presence.