For 20+ years it’s been (de facto) against the law for the stock market to go down. The only exceptions are pump & dumps to keep the poors out, but otherwise any drop in our glorious free market will be manually corrected by Uncle Sam.
Lol what? There’s no profit/loss calculation between any number of consumers vs a fascist admin more than willing to chop you up and eat your corporate lunch. Their revenue could get cut in half and bending the knee is still the right business choice.
Their business model is selling media, they don’t give a shit if they need to write out every minority princess protagonist for a white Jesus. So yeah, kill the scape goat, get some brownie points and wait for the media shit storm to blow over by next month.
If you’re old enough to remember the internet as it was 15-20 years ago it’s fairly obvious. Even in the early days of social media a narrative wouldn’t spread a fraction as quickly or with as much explosive rhetoric. In a week after a major incident we might get 4 or 5 waves of conflicting or compounding narratives.
You can imagine our social discourse as a massive pool of competing ideas going back and forth; a large disruption might cause a sizable wave. You’d expect rebound waves (opposing ideas) from the opposite fringe to naturally counteract and disperse the original and each other, keeping the water choppy but level.
With a larger network (ie: Twitter in 2025 vs Twitter in 2008) you’d expect to see more inertia and more stability, the fact that we don’t is damning. Forcing the mass uniformity of rhetoric that we see these days (massive waves sweeping across hundreds of millions on multiple platforms) is not something that could be orchestrated by anything less than state actors. It takes the planning and coordination of both the initial narratives and responses.
Sounds like a good idea until you have a soup of 50 sovereign states who still don’t agree but are now completely wide open to international power plays and local violence. The people only have “different visions” because the rich are best served by having us divided. Caving to that pressure only makes us more vulnerable to their neo-feudal ambitions.
It’s absolutely possible to have a strong federal government without getting into the shit show we have today. The problem is when federal authority gets distilled into a handful of people and detached from popular representation or recall.
“Getting the feds to back off” has been the laughable fig leaf that the right has used to dismantle the normal operation of our government for 200+ years. Now you’re buying into balkanization when they’ve enacted their coup?
We don’t need more limits on the only structure that can mitigate/navigate climate collapse; the only thread that historically has opposed the oppression of the deep south; the only speedbump that could even moderately oppose the hegemony of the ultra wealthy.
The US constitution was designed to entrench the power of the white landowner class, and that has remained true in spite of the consistent creep of federal authority. It’s just not possible to mount any opposition to the massive weight of their capital in any other way.
So no, don’t restrict the Fed’s authority to do any of that. Just give us the tools to get real, fair representation and hold our representatives accountable. Every other needed reform and restructuring could be done with no problem once we have that.
At this point you could have the most cartoon-villain version of an evil mobster union bury me in concrete and I’d fist bump them on the way down.
I’ll take a crack at it: