SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An investigation into nearly 1 million bills across all 50 US states showed a high proportion of proposed US laws being written by lobbyists. The investigation was based on computer analysis of the similarities in language used in the bills. Additionally, copycat legislation is a problem. That is where states copy-paste key parts of proposed legislation from each other, and often the original is can be traced back to lobbyists. Many tricks are used to increase acceptance of these bills such as use of deceptive titles, misleading endorsements, copied bills to override locally sourced bills, and more. The article includes several graphics showing the distribution of bad practices across the states.
A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation.
USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @01:51AM (28 children)
You do realize that trickle down economics the the entire basis for the world monetary system? The fed gives loans to the government and a few large banks, then hopes it trickles down to everyone else.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 15 2019, @02:11AM (27 children)
This is from the same extraction as the 'World series', right?
Like, a thing that is American, but is presented as 'world' level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:00AM (26 children)
You don't believe the dollar is the current world reserve currency? I didn't realize this was controversial.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Monday April 15 2019, @03:41AM (25 children)
1. how's that an argument supporting the "trickle down is a world wide economic rule"?
2. for*1 [scmp.com] now*2 [reuters.com]. But*3 [scmp.com] watch*4 [newsweek.com] out*5 [almasdarnews.com]
---
*1 "China’s petroyuan is going global, and gunning for the US dollar" - Dec 2018
*2 "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia threatens to ditch dollar oil trades to stop 'NOPEC'" - sources - Apr 2019
*3 "China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin agree to boost ties amid growing US unilateralism" - Sep 2018
*1 "Venezuela Says More Russian Troops May Arrive to Face U.S. as Syria Offers Support" - Apr 2019
*5 "Chinese army arrives in Venezuela just days after the Russian military" - Apr 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:51AM (24 children)
I'm not sure what you are having difficulty following. The USD is the world's reserve currency, therefore whatever applies to the USD applies to the world economy. I described why the USD works according to trickle down economics in the previous post. The federal reserve loans money only to a select few very large and rich organizations (primary dealers and the USG) and hopes it trickles down to everyone else.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 15 2019, @04:23AM (4 children)
"Reserve currency" does not mean "national currency".
A national economy (other than the US) does not absolutely depend on USD to function - if the US feds stop issuing new money, the economy of France/Germany/Norway/China (among many others) will continue to function, thanks for asking.
Also, the wealth distribution policy does not necessary depend on whatever US fed bank does (see the Nordic model [wikipedia.org]).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:29AM (3 children)
You seem unfamiliar with the importance of the reserve currency, the values of all other currencies depend on it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency [wikipedia.org]
And anyway, all the central banks do what the BIS says they should do, so would do the same thing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 15 2019, @04:54AM (2 children)
Explain to yourself how a Norse or a Chinese waits for her/his money to trickle down by US fed bank, I'm no longer interested [xkcd.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @05:18AM (1 child)
It isn't at all confusing. It is very straight forward.
Fed loans to us gov, gov uses funds as collateral one way or the other for treasuries, china buys US treasuries, Chinese reserves increase, china central bank can loan out more money in its own way without losing value vs the dollar.
Did you not look at what reserve currencies are used for?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:44PM
All until BRICS moves away from the US dollar. Make sure you have a spare gas can. Long way from here until the next gas station.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 15 2019, @04:26AM
Except when it doesn't, of course, like for the people using rival reserve currencies like euros or yuan. And currency != economy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @05:26AM (17 children)
No. You made assertions unsupported by any facts or evidence. That may be enough for you, but if you want to convince others, you need to back up your assertions with actual facts/data and reasonable, logical arguments.
You have not done so. Your statement is therefore unpersuasive. You might want to try again, but I suspect that you'll just fall back on one or more logical fallacies (argument from authority, maybe? Possibly Ad Hominem attacks?) and then slink back under whatever rock you crawled out from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @05:40AM (5 children)
You want facts about what the federal reserve does, look at wikipedia. I really didn't expect that to be controversial, and none of the people apparently finding it controversial have gone beyond saying "nuh-uh".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:18AM (4 children)
I am aware of the functions of the Federal Reserve. However, your rant (there really is no other word for it except, possibly, screed) doesn't show a link between a bank for the banks and supply-side economics.
Supply-side economics [wikipedia.org], by the way, is a more formal term for "trickle down economics."
Neither lowering taxes or reducing regulation are functions of the Federal Reserve. Perhaps it's you who should read wikipedia instead of me.
So, you made assertions unsupported by facts, and pointed the finger at an institution (regardless of how you feel about said institution) that has no role in setting the economic policies (except quite tangentially with the setting of interest rates on the securities they sell) you referenced.
While central bankers can have a significant impact on liquidity, which definitely has an impact on economic performance, that's not "trickle down economics."
Taxation and regulation policies are generally set by legislators, not central bankers.
You're not doing yourself any favors here, friend. Perhaps you should just quite while you're behind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:52AM (3 children)
Once again you haven't pointed to which step is supposedly wrong.
1) federal reserve gives loan to primary dealer or treasury
2) primary dealer or treasury uses this money to buy assets or give out further loans to businesses or higher people or as collateral for more loans, etc
3) those further businesses or people spend the money, spreading it around more
This is trickle down economics. You could easily imagine a non-trickle down version where the loans are given directly to individuals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:09AM (2 children)
You keep using that term.
I do not think it means what you think it means [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:17AM (1 child)
> " There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. "
The idea is that when the rich have more money they spend it and it trickles down to those below. How is this different?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:27AM
The Federal Reserve is a private entity. It does no legislating.
Setting interest rates on the bonds they sell and lending money to banks doesn't "make the well-to-do prosperous," it's a normal part of a central bank's function and role.
"Trickle Down Economics" has a very specific meaning what you're calling it ain't that.
If you want to be taken seriously, you might consider that words have meanings, and using words that don't represent what you're trying to express will not express those ideas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:08AM (10 children)
Good simple explanation here:
http://static7.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-how-the-fed-prints-money-2009-3 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:20AM (9 children)
Good show. That's a simplistic explanation of the Federal Reserve's role.
However, that is completely unrelated to "trickle down economics," which is something completely different.
Sigh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:47AM (8 children)
It is not unrelated. As I've explained twice the federal reserve only does that for select few organizations (primary dealers plus the gov). Those organizations are then hoped to loan out the money to businesses who are expected to hire people with it, etc. This is trickle down economics.
It is very simple and should be uncontroversial...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:13AM (7 children)
No.
Trickle Down Economics [wikipedia.org] is:
English motherfucker! do you speak it?!? [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:20AM
Sorry, but I suspect you are autistic or something. Are you focusing on the word "tax"? Making the rich have more money by lowering their taxes is the same thing as just giving them cheap loans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:20AM (5 children)
Or perhaps this [youtube.com] might provide you with more understanding of my point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:26AM (4 children)
This is nuts, no wonder its been so ridiculously easy for me to make money via investing. People (eg you) have no idea how the financial world works at all, and are actually incapable of learning about it beyond rote memorization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:33AM (3 children)
I understand the concept you're trying to get across. I'd point out that the Federal Reserve doesn't make loans to individuals.
As such, the concept to which you refer is not a part of supply-side economics.
tl;dr: you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:40AM (2 children)
You would point out to me the federal reserve doesn't make loans to individuals. Holy crap man, it is clear you haven't understood a single word. I feel like the rich guy in BASEketball.
And above you think it is an important point that the fed is private, once again totally irrelevant.
Rich people have more money, they spend it, it trickles down. That is the entire idea behind trickle down economics. Where the money comes from is irrelevant. That the money isn't going to individuals is exactly what makes it trickle down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:56AM (1 child)
I (and now I can't get that time back. More's the pity) paid close attention.
But you haven't said anything that was worth listening to.
You made claims that are unsupported by evidence (and you still haven't provided any) and made additional absurd statements that are false on their face.
I think I've given you enough rope. Is that noose tight enough? Ciao, Baby!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:54AM
You didn't comprehend anything I wrote.