The decline of American democracy in one graph
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2014
- This one terrifying graph should make Americans question whether they really live in a democracy after all.
For more on the study by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige that the graph comes from, see our article here: www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/...
Subscribe to our channel! ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Vox.com is news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Check out our full video catalog: ruclips.net/user/voxdotcomvideos
Follow Vox on Twitter: / voxdotcom
Or on Facebook: / vox
![MAF Teeski - Whole Thing (feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SHWEj-ndz6g/mqdefault.jpg)
TL;DR:
America is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy.
Anon ⵣ Represent, duh
@Patrick McCarthy dictatorship is like a democracy but with one in absolute power.
Ours is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. “And to the Republic for which it stands”.......
@@nesterperiwinkle a country can be a republic and democraty. look at finland
@@readisgooddewaterkant7890 Sure, a country can be all sorts of things. The United States however is not a democracy- that was merely my point.
We need to regulate the amount of lobbying that is going on.
+joe curtis yeah because by then might makes right in such a way that there's no longer any need for lobbying at all. There's no lobbyists in the Congo for example, just warlords.
joe curtis So you're saying the state retreated and left a power vacuum to be filled by warlords?
Quick, we must form a counter lobby to the proposed law and make sure the subcommittee's bill never sees the light of day!
ray lin I think your on to something
good luck
lobbying should be outlawed
@cynetri
I want to be able to lobby my legislators.
But I don’t want $ to = speech
Public financing of elections
hmmm money
i agree
what is lobbying?
@@norukamo bribery towards politicians with an intent to affect political decisions. In most countries this is strictly illegal and a matter of huge political scandal, but somehow in the US, it is not.
That's what you get for having a electoral college system where votes were based on state/district majority rather than absolute majority. Although that is also a narrow way to solve representation in elections.
+KikomochiMendoza Everyone should have an equal voice. A country hillybilly should have the same voice as a city slicker. And if that causes said hillybilly to get fucked over a little bit, then I guess that's what has to happen.
+KikomochiMendoza It sucks because the Electoral College was created in the 1800s when not many people were educated enough to choose a person to vote for. Now, almost 200 years later, mostly everyone is educated, and this electoral college has turned the US into an oligarchy.
+KikomochiMendoza What? USA is not a Democracy, but a Republic. Saying "The decline of American democracy" is false. There was never a "Democracy" (except for some period of revolution, and so called "Democrat party"). The founding fathers, and the framers of the constitution did not want mob rule (Democracy) and the constitution specifically said that the government was to be Republican in form. So saying how "Democrat" a Republic is ironic.
kemboy323 You are correct America is not a democracy and it is a republic, but not because their political party is dominated by republicans. A republic is a country that is ruled by the public (res publica, reign of the of public) which is why they don't have a king and have a president as the head of state that is "chosen" by the people. However they are not a democracy, no country has ever been a democracy since ancient Greece, democracy is the direct rule of the people (demos cracia people rule) which literally means that every law made is voted by the people themselves. USA is a Representative Democracy, it is a nation that chooses leaders to make laws for them (as it is way too difficult to have every single law decided by every single person). And these concepts existed way before the Democrats and the Republic exists.
kemboy323 if you're wondering why there is too words for people (publica and demos) its because these are concepts from two different periods. Democracy was a concept developed by Greece Demos being the ancient Greek word for people. While the Public was a Roman concept which means society or the people in general (society and people where inseparable to the Romans).
Now you ask then why do the two parties in USA call themselves Democrats and Republics when they are neither Greek or Roman? That's because they seek to embody the concepts of the Rule of the People or the Representation of the Public through their political party (at least these are the principles they are founded upon). But now . . . tradition and affiliation I guess. See how effective it is to have a third party in the presidential race.
Honestly, it's a crying shame that there are so few views for Vox videos.
+mlimli
It makes me crazy that VOX is owned by *Comcast, but other than that you are right. Simple, clear, accurate it seems. But judging from comments here people don't listen.
*What has VOX had to say about net neutrality, antitrust, media consolidation and deceptive business practices?
...which is exactly why "absolute" democracy doesn't work. haha
They'd get way more views if they didn't gulp down SJW koolaid. I love Vox videos that are apolitical or at least stay away from SJW idiocy of "oooh white men have it so well everyone else is horribly oppressed."
They appear to be extremely biased. Not saying that's a bad thing or that their videos mean less, just that you only get a portion of information from them.
Michael Buford maybe there's nothing good about trump?
or maybe just maybe the US needs more than 2 parties...
(but that would also call for an entirely different political system in order to work properly...)
We have more than 2 parties. This misconception among Americans is part of the problem. I'm voting for Jill Stein of the Green party because she's the closest thing to Bernie Sanders today. But there's also the Libertarian party, the Constitution party, etc... The media wants us to believe there are only 2 parties but that's not the case.
I know that there are technically more than the 2 prominent ones... (that's why I asked for a different political system).
In a winner takes all system like the one we have today, a reduction to 2 main parties is the natural outcome. The only way to change that is to change the system.
Well the constitution says we have the ability to abolish our broken political systems
"I know that there are technically more than the 2 prominent ones...(that's why I asked for a different political system)"
What you said makes no sense! The only reason why we have two prominent political parties is because WE vote for those two political parties! You vote for every single congressman that is sitting at congress! YOU vote for the person to represent you in congress. The fact that "we have two political parties" is because WE vote for ONLY those parties! If you want something to change in a democratic way then you must vote for the parties YOU want to represent you, the party that you want to make the rules with!
I consistently hear people saying that, "We better pick the lesser of two evils." That saying makes me so infuriated, why would YOU vote for a person that you don''t want to be in charge? If you have complaints, spread information about your complaints, get people behind you to support those ideals. You don't need the system to change, only to inform people that it can change! Inform people of other political parties, inform people of the policies and beliefs that they claim to have!
Saying that there is only two main parties because of the system is exactly why we have two main political parties!
problem is the only way to change it is to take out, replace or get on your side the elites that are the reason you want to change the political system in the first place.
"never sold itself as a democracy" yet that's all anyone ever thinks that we are and all we are taught that we are in school -.-
Cain Albertson I was taught it was a republic.
We are actually a constitutional republic, but yet Vox tries to push a left agenda by persuading people to think America is still a democracy if they put the word "democracy" after representative
Castornator Republic DEMOCRCY.
Baqar Zaidi you're still wrong
Castornator We vote for people to make our decisions in the government. Sounds like a Republic Democracy.
There should be more referendums on policy issues rather than having vague popularity contests once in a while
TheMagrathean u can make people pay at referendums to bear cost.. It will come definitely less per person..
TheMagrathean online referendum.?
Trust me, referenda are a terrible idea.
No, you just need a voting system that gives more incentive to have a more parties. First past the post is notoriously poor at this, which is exactly why the US has ended up with 2 parties. That change alone could help with other problems down the line.
Get rid of the corporate donations. #FeelTheBurn
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets to eat." - someone i can't rmr
Music track too loud again often drowning out the commentary.
The most important part of modern day society isn't the democracy part, even though that's what powerful nations are most known for.
No, the most important part is the balance of powers (of which democratic elections are a part). And I'm not just referring to the balance of power between the branches of government. Private enterprise, journalists, and curious citizens should all play a part in this if it is to work, and in order for it to work, there needs to be a sufficient level of transparency.
I actually think the problem is that there isn't high enough levels of transparency. In the past, the lack of deep transparency was due in part to an inability to quickly disseminate information to the public; government decisions were simply done on a basis of trust that they were doing the right thing. But with technology where it is today, there's no excuse for not providing a more nuanced view of the entire governmental process.
Even allowing for things like state secrets, the public should be provided with continuous video and audio feeds of most meetings involving legislature, not just the main assembly, and providing much greater access to journalists and third parties (and the criteria for becoming such a third party should have a low threshold, mostly regarding security matters and little else). Local and state governments should be just as beholden to this as the federal government. Exceptions to any of this need to be accompanied with detailed explanations.
Trust in individuals should really be taken out of the picture. A government official shouldn't be elected on the basis of trust. Rather, there should be a system in place that is so efficient that anyone in any office would find it almost impossible to get away with any sort of corruption. There would be trust in the system, and with that, we could all focus on the actual ideas being debated rather than these structural issues.
This is what George Carlin already knew: it's a Big club and you ain't in it.
Every ten years, people talk about THIS time is the worst time in American history. Then ten years later, the same people will make the same stupid point.
+Aditya159 Maybe because every new 10 years is worse then the previous 10 years as far as politics are concerned?
This aged well
2 years later... "Yep."
Actually, the recent crisis was caused by banking companies expecting bailouts.
+John Jowers Thank you!!!
And these "banking companies" get to behave that way because of lobbyism/corruption. How does that contradict the point this video is making?
There are a lot of factors in the crisis. Even though that's one of them, it's the one you can't control. Would you rather have companies go under and millions of american's lose their bank accounts?
Something was needed to keep the banks going but few if any went to prison. Many of these wicked men who thrive on the "moral hazard" are now setting up the next crisis.
@@TelephoneToughGuy It doesn't, it's just a technical detail.
Representative democracy isn't really a democracy.
okay well is there voting tho?
Absolutely! Thank you! I don’t know if it will help, but will be sharing this video over & over as often as I can.
_Maybe we need a bit more democracy in our representation._
/via Vox
At the very least, we could use a little more actual _representation_ from those to whom the job is given.
Vox for President!
well this is due to us citizens only thinking there are 2 parties in your country
0:17 It does, it moves.
What proportion of people are actually voting?
I would like to see what this graph looks like for other countries whose lobbies are not so powerful.
i saw at least 5 graphs clickbait title
2009 financial crisis didn't occur because "we didn't regulate wall street enough". Its a normal occurrence in a credit reliant economy. Every 40 years or so a financial bubble forms and causes havoc due to people borrowing and borrowing. My spending is your income, so when I borrow I also spend more.
0:17 Feel for you bro
Trust me, I am from India and you do not want to over democratize a nation leading to politicians playing for the masses and inevitability communalizing a very diverse electorate.
Thats already being done. Presidential candidates focus predominantly on swing states. The reason Trump gets away with alienating the Hispanic and Muslim minorities is that his advisors believe that the projected growth in white voters will make up for it.
If India is democracy done right, nobody wants democracy 😂
India is too multicultural
India was never a Democracy! You can only have a functioning Democracy if you have separation between Religion and Govt. India is not a Secular country and never was. India does not allow Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Conversion!
India has a space program and it's cheaper
This confirms what most of us has felt for so long....
chaotica - dystopia
that song describes our future.
I was hoping for a cite to this survey. I hear of it, but nobody cites it.
Body cameras for ALL political figures.
A nation that outlives it's purpose is worse than dead.
"A democracy, if you can keep it."
*a REPUBLIC if you can keep it
I wonder what would happen if we take the money or atleast the affluent out of politics???? hmmm.............
Ummm.... YA THINK?!?
Part of me would like to see if proportional democracies or how they reflect the will of the people, or how winner take all democracies with strong regulations regarding money influences in politics reflect the will of the people and see if it is an improvement or not or how much. I have a theory that people are not represented as well because they only have to be seen as less bad than the candidate at the opposite end of the pole, allowing them to not worry about truly representing the people. I would like to find out whether or not these ides I have have scientific backing, and know what is the disease that makes people not represented by America's government.
Tell me something we didnt already know
America is a republic not a traditional democracy.
At this point a monarchy sounds much better.
i hand-wrote a letter to my representative concerning the pollution levels in the Dallas Metroplex. I did some research on him and found out he got rich building houses before the housing crash. Dallas' pollution problem is mainly caused by all the new construction projects and heavy machinery involved in them.
then I thought about how my grand father visits his representative in-person every few months to beg for advertisement money to try and drive tourism to his town and how his representative basically ignores him and tells him the democrats won't let him have it: which is just something the representative tells him to keep him angry at someone else while nothing changes.
So I thought, why bother writing my representative? If that's how they treat their OWN constituents, why would they listen to the liberal. It's pointless.
Oof seeing this 9 years late is veeeery concerning
As a UK citizen I must say that our system is very flawed. If you look at last years election it always leads to a two party system, either labor or conservative. Which makes no sense since (I don't support this party) but UKIP got 3 million votes and got one seat in parliament. Compare this to the SNP which had 1.4 million votes but gained 56 seats in parliament. We are using a very old first past the post system here, it is not democratic at all.
Can't be arsed to edit.
True lol :)
I thought we were a Democratic Republic not a representative democracy
I forgot what drug it was that makes you talk like this guy... where you are really high but really relaxed and your voice gets all rickety like that... I love the choice of music reminiscent of the marching theme in THE LAST EMPEROR OF CHINA.
Not a democracy.
Pure democracy is preferable always, but with that comes the responsibility from the media to report on issues as accurately as they can - without bias, and if there is any, it should be made known to be an opinion.
Passing off opinion as fact in the media waters down democracy, and means that people will be less informed, they could potentially vote against their own interests.
How come you didnt source the graph? Dont start turning into Buzzfeed now...
Here: journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=de93af3ca396c1be5367dab8427fc72d
+x0acake Yea... Cambridge and whatever organisation charging for this can collectively get fucked in the ass with a cactus for charging $37.50 for this article. Here's the link to the article: scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Does the US ever hold referendums?
+Ihategoogle+ California holds propositions, if that counts for anything.
The problem with controlling for 'interest groups' is that you've basically selected for the most apathetic and unmotivated voters out there, likely the 60% of the American electorate which simply doesn't show up unless there's a potential president on the ballot.
Lobby groups are people and individuals uniting to voice their opinions in the government.
I really feel that history has successfully been rewritten. The 2008/2009 economic collapse was 99% due to the burst of the housing bubble. Wall Street had very little to do with it. Everyone knew this back in 2008, but somehow a mere 6 years later the amnesia has already set in. The reason the markets and economy collapsed was due to politicians from the 90s and 2000s who changed banking rules to offer sub prime loans to people who couldn't otherwise afford to buy properties, which caused a huge housing bubble to form (which, ironically, actually made it less affordable for those same people who couldn't afford housing), the bubble eventually burst, which caused massive foreclosures, which left banks holding onto mortgage notes worth less than the properties, which caused the banks to start failing. *That* is what happened. The real irony is that this problem stemmed not from Wall Street at all, not from greedy corporations, not from hedge funds or big oil or day traders or tobacco companies - but from Washington. It came from misguided politicians who promised their voters to make housing more affordable and accessible. Well, in the end I guess it'd be an understatement to say that the voters in this case ended up not getting what they wanted which I suppose was the point of this video anyway.. :)
Yup just like a brexit referendum?
Average people can't be expected to formulate policies for a nation.
In my opinion.
Direct democracy would be great if not for its biggest flaw, inconvenience.
Nice voice crack at 0:18
Why does this channel not have more subscriber
Very reasonable take to have given the study, but every since Gilens & Page was published, other studies have come out that point to the opposite conclusion, and that generally speaking, the median voter is well represented in our democracy, and in addition (copium incoming) there is a positive correlation between rich (90th percentile if I remember correctly) opinion with Republican policies, and an ever higher correlation between middle class (40th or 50th percentiles of income, I think) opinion with Democratic policies. One study that comes to mind is Grossman & Isaac if I remember correctly, something called "Oligarchy or Class War" I think?
We need Bernie Sanders!
As long as you vote for Bernie Sanders, I don't care what your reason is LOL
commie...
+Deus Vult nah
fair enogh
yes communism just ask my home county how its going
**Oh, you're surprised by this? Come on, this report is an confirmation of what we have already been saying. This report puts a concrete number about how the wealthy individuals, corporations and special interests (namely money) has taken control of the politics in the US.**
Yay...
i think there is abundant democracy in the system. the problem to me seems to be a lack of education on the specific reasons why you should vote for a person. in my experience most people treat politics like a sport, supporting one politician for a generic reason or geographic location without actually appreciating what that person is doing for them, for example the highest % of republican voters per capita is in a town with the lowest living standards in the US, even though the republicans have been vocal about the lack of effort they will put into supporting the lowest class of Americans. maybe if these people voted correctly they would have their interests supported, and maybe by voting against people with subversive interests politicians would be forced to be honest and lead to a better system for all.
+panmex swagmobile. So your plan to fix the system, is blame voters? No sir, politicians blatantly lied to us many many many times. Hillary says she now opposed TPP, and Barak "had concerns" about NAFTA, I'd throw every single penny I have on a bet we're going to see another trade deal which she would enthusiasticly support. Point is, both parties serve the same set of economic interests. more importantly, representation isn't democratic enough, it's an illegitimate sham.
Yep, that's why I don't bother voting
I wish in these videos hey would actually start calling people out and telling the public what they can do about it. We’re getting screwed
this is good because it's 50-50. both sides are far apart. it's a compromise between both parties
People were heard in 2016
No, the winner of the most votes lost the election
Unfortunately, without a LAW to force "democracy," people are not interested in it. They say they are, but they don't vote for it. I mean, nearly 40% of the country doesn't vote. So many people say they care, but then they go and not vote.
How are we supposed to change if a little less than half of our people says "I don't care."
+David Suh I want to preface this by saying that I can't speak for everyone that chooses not to vote (also I'm not even an American). But I'm guessing it's not that they don't vote because they don't care about democracy. They don't vote because they get the feeling that whether they vote or not, doesn't really matter anymore (i.e. exactly what this video is about). I knew about this graph from Lawrence Lessig, probably the only one doing everything he can to change things for the better.
Just wait 10 years.. you haven’t seen nothing yet
You need a revolution!
America is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy
"Most people, including most Americans, would be surprised to learn that the word “democracy” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution of the United States of America (1789)."
It's an oligarchy
No it's a constitutional republic
Money...
Was interested in a few of your videos and was following But wall street? Great talking point but ill informed.
But still doing way better than most of the countries.
We need more limited government in the context of a democracy. The politicians power should be limited by law, the constitution, etc. The war in Iraq was government gone awry with massive governmental spending causing the economy to stagnant, not grow and decline. Special interest groups who want less government are ok. Special interest groups who want more government is the real problem.
I doubt the general public can make good political decisions. I don't know whether it would be worse. It is hard to imagine it could be worse, I guess. My doubts stem from my own ignorance of most propositions on ballots. I have no clue whether they will work out good or bad. I have developed more opinions, but I cannot claim certainty in my opinions. One strong opinion I have is moderation is better than extremism. That is very broad. It is probably a myopic opinion that extremism is the only way things get done.
Maybe... we need to take money out of politics. Allow the representatives to represent the people instead of their donors.
What happened Vox? Where has all this coverage gone for the 2016 election? We know we have a candidate that wants to help address these issues, yet you have become silent on your founding ideas from two years ago. I understand you were acquired by Comcast in the past six months and I would like to believe that this hasn't affected your mo, but i'm afraid it has. I still have an immense admiration of your production, no one has been able to bring infographics to life quite as well as you have. Your Bernie Sanders interview is what made me change my vote. The first time I watched it, I didn't like his message. It sounded too optimistic and I wrote him off as an idealist. I watched it a second time, months later, and I felt encouraged to do my own research and I ultimately decided to support his campaign. The media blackout of Bernie Sanders is probably the most frustrating part of this election, and it ultimately makes voters even more supportive of Sanders' message. Here's hoping that our future election cycles can at least count on less corporate censorship.
I dont get you vox... So right here you are saying that interest groups and lobbyists have an influence over the decisions made by our leadrs, and that average people and their wants and interests virtually dont matter, and yet you ridiculize and criticise the only candidate that was actively calling this out, bringing it to the forefront and fighting againt it, to support and get behind a candidate that openly and proudly supports and has the support of, said financial eleis, interest groups, and lobbiests???? Im really confused right now...
TRUTH
It's bad, but doesn't that also mean that citizens DO have control? Because the relationship between wanted policies and interest groups' policies cannot be that stable.
+S3thc0n ... ummm, no. I'm pretty sure that if the general public only gets what it wants when it aligns with established interests, it would mean the exact opposite. It would mean that we have effectively no control of the system, and that we are a mere afterthought. Granted we do have actual control in only one way, we can decide that a bullsh*t and illegitimate system doesn’t have the right to exist. This is called public sovereignty, the time for reforms is long over.
A social capitalist, meritocratic free-market economy; under a popular democracy with an additional member system lower house through single transferable vote and proportional representation, and a an upper house Senate elected by ballotage - with an executive cabinet from a technocratic d’Hondt and a semi-Presidential FPTP position; all within an egalitarian, secular and intellectual society.
It’s not that hard to do is it?
need ranking voting vote 1 then 2 then 3 if that happens i wote for that if this happens i vote for this
This is sad
This was true since forever in the USA. In fact, most people opposed desegregation in the 60s for example, not even talking about just the south where it actually affected people. Originally in the country only 10% of the population could vote. Back then the country was governed by laws and land owners. These days it's governed by people with money or the wavering opinion of the masses.
There's too diverse perspectives and ideologies for a real democracy to work. In a free country the more people you have the more perspectives there are, which is why in the past few decades with such large populations it had become so difficult to actually follow what the masses want. The only way to have a stable democracy is to have everyone think the same things
Well, it is good to know that we finally have a real president now!
Legislation holds the real power!
U.S.A. ranked as a flawed democracy, and the 25th most democratic country in the world in the 2019 democracy rankings. No need to reinvent the wheel: the public just need to demand and vote for candidates who will give them a political system similar to the world's most democratic countries. Or as the Democratic and Republican parties say, plunge over the cliff of communism, marxism and globalization. Don't fear change; the country would look a lot more like Denmark, instead of it's current trajectory towards looking something more like Venezuela.
We aren’t a Democracy (it’s the how, not the what), we’re a Federal Constitutional Republic. But I do agree, our two party system is broken! That’s why I’m a Libertarian!
There isn't just direct democracy but representative or indirect democracy. No country has direct democracy on federal level unless it's a referendum.
@Kishan Singh neither, almost anarchist.
Liberal!
I thought America is a Republic, not a democracy, where majority rules. That's popular sovereignty, deciding on things like slavery being legal or not, and we all know what what that led to...
The problem is that we just have a "choice" between people who claim that they'll work to forward one of two ideological package deals with a system designed to marginalize anyone else regardless of the will of the people. I generally think that Democratic ideology is better than Republican ideology, but nobody who deserves it benefits from Republicans and Democrats being the only options for leaders. We need to switch to a voting system which allows third parties to actually be competitive and viable, at least enough to give them the power to tip the balance between Republicans and Democrats. We also need to tighten rules keeping money out of politics so that politicians don't have to make deals with the devil to have a chance at power.
Adam ruins everything!!!
ANY government, ESPECIALLY the ones of the so called democracies, are the interest representation of the BUSINESS and NOT the "people", it's all about money. "happy people" are only considered in how far their condition ("welfare") affects the business. that's why the work forces, the "voters", are kept in minimal arguable coniditions (or prisons in case of US, cheaper still). any other statement about politics representing people is childish nonsense. and it has never been different, there is no "decline", only maybe an increased visibility. the poor are starving? well, maybe the church cares. who else would? "socialists"? in Europe they're just (rightfully) fading into negligeability because through the last decades they showed neither able nor interested to really support their voters. representative democracy is coming to its end.
American democracy.... just like the American dream... It never came to be...
America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy
I really hope that Bitcoin will end this "representative democracy" by taking away from government the ability to make choices
+Earl Fox com, It wont change anything significantly, It would just get the group who holds the most coins the power..... and they would just be the new fed, all over again.
cyberpunkspike no, it takes away power from those who were printing money
The power isn't with the printers though, the banks will crash any currency that prints Wiemar style to the dirt. So nobody does this any longer, they get loans from banks to print their currency, so they secure the currency being printed with the value of debt. This does still lead to inflation, because it inflates the value of debt as a commodity, but it weakens sovereign power enough to secure the banks as the main beneficiary to any rip off. In addition the banks then manipulate the values of currency as they hold the most, and can crash anything at any moment if it was in their interest, this doesn't change.
It would only 'possibly' weaken the sovereign ability to generate debt, but the banks choose to buy it to secure their competing positions as market makers. If anything you'd just stop inflating the value of the holdings of the banks, and then sovereign entities would no longer have any consumer demand for their debt, only investor demand. Basically all my points stand, it changes literally none of our problems.
It's also not a viable currency, as it doesn't satisfy the market desire for an ideal token of value. It;s a digital commodity, and it's only value is driven by the black market demand for an anonymous transfer of value. Understanding this will help you square the circle, when you have questions like... "if it was gonna transform things, then why would mega banks invest in it from its origins"
But... America is and has always been a Republic
which is a form of democracy
More people need to see this & less people need to see Kim Kardashian vids which are distracting us from reality. aka this video.
Very odd argument. Of course if you average everyone in favour and everyone opposed you will net out to 0. Or a flat line in your graph. This graph does not tell us anything about anything.
Funniest video I've seen in a while. Drives home the fact that ideology is a belief system, and belief systems are like Cinderella. Pretty and attractive but unfortunately not real.