189 Comments
User's avatar
SimulationCommander's avatar

When the money is fake, the rest of the economy is doomed to follow.

The problem is that they CAN'T just shut off the money faucet because now the "economy" relies on it. And as any fan of history knows, when the fake economy of getting rich by being close to the literal money-making machine overtakes the real economy of mutually exchanging goods and services, the wheels come off the bus.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency involved.”

- Ludwig von Mises

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

This is the trick from the bankers' perspective -- how do they 'manage' the collapse so that they're also in charge of the next fiat system doomed to failure?

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

Decades of academia believing in economic fairy-tales sets these bankers as the authorities to the certified idiots among us. “It’s greed or late-stage capitalism!” Never thinking that it’s the degradation of the monetary unit or that the government is picking winners and losers. It’s truly the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses when bailouts save the owner-class from terrible decisions.

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

Precise description of "too big to fail."

Expand full comment
Bill Pound's avatar

And I now see Jamie Dimon saying he can work with communist Mamdani should he be elected as mayor of NYC.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Historically, commies are easy to bribe.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

His resume is even worse than I expected - what a fraud. If he was a champion of the working class, I’d still disagree with his philosophy, but at least he wouldn’t be such a phoney POS. The guy has LITERALLY never worked a job in the private sector.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

I'm impressed that Cuomo got to extend his grift for a few more months.

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

He’s the same guy who indicated the government should use eminent domain to seize private property for climate change purposes.

It’s nice to be in charge of the rationing I guess

Expand full comment
P.S.'s avatar

I am pretty sure that Trump is a fan of "intimate" domain..I call it that because someone always get screwed.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

A friend’s family had tons of land seized through imminent domain before I existed to set up TVA and the hydroelectric dams that power the SE. Absolutely got screwed by the “fair market value” they received. It was his grandfather or great-grandfather that considered loading a boat full of explosives and destroying one of the dams. Thankfully he didn’t even try, but… that family definitely experienced “intimate domain.”

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Jamie can work with anyone as long as Jaime drives the terms

Expand full comment
Keith's avatar

Yeah...Jamie doesn't have/want to move to Miami.

Expand full comment
BildvonGott's avatar

I’m no economist but my gut tells me this entire dilemma is yet another artifact of a government that has grown too large and unwieldy. In particular, the citation of the Fed’s covid era QE and the administration’s simultaneous stimulus payments would seem to support that hypothesis.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Then they blamed the inflation on "everybody having too much money."

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

Thank you Commander for the Question,

In Greece they made Solon Commander and Chief after the bankers screwed the economy. Solon was the Philosopher King and a Socratic not a Sophist.

Trump's truth is everything he says is bullshit. It is the old tale of the boy who cried wolf.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Solon

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

Politicians, bankers and "economists" have repeatably proven that their opinions about monetary policy aren't to be trusted. During the 2008 crisis, the oft repeated mantra was that a bail out, without question, was needed. The troubled institutions were deemed "to large to fail", when in fact, that was exactly what was needed. The bail out, of course, disrupted the the laws and basis of a true capitalist system, supply vs. demand. The effects are ongoing and I don't feel optimistic for the average citizen.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

As long as the final and total catastrophe comes after I'm dead. But I'm older, you need to fend for yourself.

Expand full comment
Joni Lang's avatar

It’s a good time to be old.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I,m in the nearly dead stage myself and worried sick for my children and great/grandchildren. I,m going out on a tidal wave of helpless rage. "I told you so" offers zero satisfaction.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

I’m with you, last stages of my life . However, both my children are social democrats so… my husband and I are going to enjoy this last stage. They will need to figure things out. BTW, my first house was purchased in the 70’s. Do you remember mortgage rates then?

Expand full comment
Diane Dodge's avatar

The older ladies I know, in their late 70’s, say their mortgage rates were 11% on their first homes.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

My kids are pretty much like me, classic conservatives to the core.

We bought our first house in the 70s too, and as best I can remember our rate was pushing 10%.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

Hopefully you’re elderly, or you may suffer the catastrophic collapse of a worldwide paper money standard like the rest of us…

Expand full comment
Tom Burns's avatar

The whole stinking thing is a Racket! Replacing smarmy schoolmarmy Powell won’t change that.

Expand full comment
Jennifer's avatar

A big club that we are not in.

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

The "money faucet" (by which I assume you mean the "money supply") does not matter except to the extent that it impacts the real value of the dollar. For the past 235 years, the CRB Index (which closed at 293.61 today) has been a "good enough" indicator of the real value of the dollar. The CRB Index has been 300 +/- 5% for more than a year, which is exactly where I believe that it should be. So, the "money faucet" is not our problem right now.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I find monetary policy very difficult to understand, so I'd ask your patience with my confusion. i don,t understand how printing money to accommodate credit spending could possibly not affect the real value of the dollar. Doesn,t the CRB predict inflation? According to Han's link, the index remains quite high. How do you see our problem if not (or in addition to) the federal govt's addiction to spending money it doesn't have. It all reminds me of a dog chasing its tail.

Thank you.

Expand full comment
Denise Tener's avatar

Read The Lords of Easy Money, Leonard Christopher

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Thanks! I,m 7th in line at library

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

Yes, the CRB Index (there are two of them, and I track the one that closed at 293.61 on October 15) is by far the best predictor of moves in PCE and CPI inflation. The real value of the dollar (and therefore the CRB Index) reflects the overall supply-demand balance for total world dollar liquidity, and government borrowing/spending is only one factor in the equation. Our deficits reflect inadequate economic growth more than they do excessive spending. If Trump succeeds in getting economic growth up to even 2.50% (we averaged 3.46% for the 20th century), our deficit and debt problems will melt away.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Thank you for responding. That makes sense but I,m puzzled as to where to locate any real economic growth. I think of the US as a service economy with a huge debt and great suck of people who are not expected to pay federal income taxes. It all seems based on air.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

I had to look that up too. It when I ask for today’s price is says 366.19

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

And the chart from 2020 looks like a rocket ship takeoff. From below 150 Maybe I’m looking at the wrong index

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

There are two "CRB Indexes." I track the one that closed at 293.61 on October 15. Yes, the CRB Index is much higher than it was in 2020, but it has been 300 +/- 5% for the past year, which is right where I think it should be. My model of the economy is that we cannot have any kind of "crash" as long as the Fed keeps the CRB Index where it is right now. Inflation will average above the Fed's 2% PCE target, though.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Inflation is a real problem for elderly retired people.

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

Yes, unstable money hurts everyone. Unfortunately, the best that the Fed can do now is to hold the CRB Index constant. If they do, inflation will subside to their 2% PCE target and RGDP growth will accelerate. Of course, higher growth will help working people more than retired people, but most retired people have kids and grandkids.

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

There are two different CRB Indexes. I follow the one that closed at 293.85 today (10/16/25) because Arbor Research reconstructed it by month back to January 1749. I show the graph (which explains all of U.S. economic history) in my book, "Fix the Fed!"

Expand full comment
Uncle Bubbles's avatar

It doesn’t look like the CRB is adjusted for inflation. Wouldn’t that make its use a bit more challenging?

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

No. The whole idea of defining the dollar in terms of something real is to eliminate monetary inflation (and deflation, for that matter). Because of the way that our general price indexes are constructed, if the Fed were to keep the CRB Index stable, PCE inflation would average about 2.0% and CPI inflation would average about 2.4%. There is no way to force these measures to zero without creating a permanent economic depression.

Expand full comment
Louis Woodhill's avatar

There are two different CRB Indexes. I follow the one that closed at 293.85 today (10/16/25) because Arbor Research reconstructed it by month back to January 1749. I show the graph (which explains all of U.S. economic history) in my book, "Fix the Fed!"

Expand full comment
Han's avatar

I am grateful to you for the information

Expand full comment
Madjack's avatar

Audit the Fed/END THE FED. This has been a 100 year failed experiment.

Expand full comment
TWC's avatar

Not for those for whom it works.

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Eric Salzman pretends that a reasoned and measured debate is afoot in this administration about the pros and cons about assuring there is more accountability for the Fed. Of course, the real discussion goes something like this, hey, let’s install a lackey of the president, maybe a Fox newscasters, who looks the part. Let’s effectively hand the levers of the Fed to a president who has managed to squander half a billion dollars his daddy gave him on stupid and I’ll advised deals that went belly up. Let’s hand the levers of the economy to a man, who if left to his own devices will step full force on the accelerator and take the nation’s economy on a wild joy ride to massage his fragile ego. There is a model for this, of course, it’s Peron’s Argentina, it’s Putin’s Russia, it’s Kim Jong Uns North Korea. Interesting also that now Salzman seems content to place the blame for inflation squarely on the Fed, while blithely ignoring the wild roller coaster ride of tariffs imposed by a president who still thinks we’re in 1982.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

I think you’d be happier in Venezuela.

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Funny you should mention that, Trump is trying to emulate Maduro as the American caudillo. We’ll all be living in Venezuela soon if he controls the Fed.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

I had a feeling you’d respond. Those who lurk into places they disdain get riled up easily. Funny how those from this side stay away from conflict. Your side welcomes it.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Interesting name.. the wright stuff.

Expand full comment
bhs66's avatar

You need to go back on your TDS meds so you can think straight!

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Ah, yes, TDS— Trump Delusion Syndrome— is indeed a horrible problem. How bad a case do you have? Were you one of the ones who injected bleach? Would you forgive him a murder on 5ave?

Expand full comment
bhs66's avatar

You don’t realize how stupid you look when you make inane comments like this do you? Your tiny little brain actually listened to those statements from Trump and you were dumb enough to take them literally! And to show what a complete moron you are, with zero self awareness you asked me in public here on Substack if I did those things! You’re the quintessential dim bulbs, low information democrat with terminal TDS.

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Ad hom, ad hom, blah, blah, blah, ad hom, blah, blah

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Hmm. Is that what happened in his first term? I think you’re confused

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Are you 1) denying Trump wants complete control over the Fed? And 2) do you think this is a good idea?

Expand full comment
raph's avatar

The latter. Money is 1/2 of all transactions, fucking with its price (interest rates) spells doom. Audit-shmaudit.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

No, bad idea. See Brent Nyitray's comment, or mine.

Expand full comment
Pericles's avatar

Good article.

The Lords of Easy Money gives a good history of the Fed policies that got us here and how it massively enriched the affluent investor class at the expense of the average American.

The current system is badly broken but how it can be fixed is a very tough question.

Expand full comment
who cares 73's avatar

its an easy answer, it just takes courage that groupthinking bureaucrats dont have. Namely, higher interest rates & some check on congressional deficit spending. Bureaucrats hate high rates & spending cuts. its a conflict of interest.

Expand full comment
Denise Tener's avatar

I agree completely

Expand full comment
BlackDogClan's avatar

Can't be fixed. Western Civilization is unsustainable. The whole thing has to be plowed under, dunged, and laid fallow for at least a few decades.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Not so tough. See comments about eliminating the dual mandate.

Expand full comment
Chris Barth's avatar

I have been in the restaurant business for twenty years. If I ran my restaurants like this I would have been out of business in a year and probably be looking at jail time. Our economy is based on the consumer. The result of all of this Fed crap is inflation that we have now.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

and the debt.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Not to mention all the horrific shit they did with the newly printed cash. Wars top the list but the list is long.

Expand full comment
Brent Nyitray's avatar

I think the issue goes back to the dual mandate, which was established in 1977. Well-meaning in concept, it said the Fed was required to manage both inflation and unemployment. Sounds reasonable, but the unintended consequences of this were something else.

In practice, the dual mandate meant the Fed had to keep the pedal to the metal as long as goods and services inflation remained under control. This created the mother of all bull markets in financial assets. Instead of "too much money chasing too few goods" we had "too much money chasing too few assets"

Indeed, after the dual mandate, we had bubbles in commodities (early 80s), stocks (late 90s) and residential real estate (mid 00s). When the residential real estate bubble burst, the Fed pushed interest rates to the floor, but growth didn't improve (the classic liquidity trap).

Buying MBS during the 2008 bust may have made sense, in order to get more houses to change hands and let the market clear. But during COVID, it added fuel to the residential real estate market, which is why we have such an affordability crisis.

They say generals always fight the last war, and Powell did that in 2020, treating a temporary pandemic-driven slowdown like a burst residential real estate bubble.

But blame the dual mandate for the gain-of-function monetary policy.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Yes, this is the guy running our inflation that that let the fed building renovation go from 1.9 billion to 2.5 billion and I bet it ends up more like 3 when all is said and done .

Expand full comment
Katherine Blair's avatar

Oh, and their operating budget is always in the red.

Expand full comment
PL's avatar

Thanks, Eric, a couple of points. I would disagree with:

1) artificially low mortgage rates were not a “positive”. They artificially increased the price of houses, favoring buyers with higher incomes and/or larger down payment payments.

2) it’s a well propagated myth that home ownership should be thought of as a source of wealth creation. Owning a home has only created excess wealth because of our persistent inflation over decades. Housing is housing. It’s where people live. In spite of the propaganda, there’s no obvious reason people should own homes versus renting. I’m not saying I favor one or the other and personally, I’d rather own a home, but I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford to do so.

Expand full comment
P.S.'s avatar

Because one day they will be too old to work & they need to have a home paid for.

Expand full comment
joeybar's avatar

Probably the best synopsis I've read what the Fed has done from the Great Recession on with QE, interest rates, etc.

As far as Presidents pressuring Fed Charimen to lower interest rates I always think of LBJ when he summoned Fed Chairman, Bill Martin, to his Texas ranch office and pushed him around the office and up against a wall threatening him to lower interest rates. Pure old school. https://mises.org/mises-wire/when-lbj-assaulted-fed-chairman

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Yeah, LBJ was really something. Like you say, old school.

Expand full comment
Laura5y's avatar

Audit the Fed, make e v e r y t h i n g public, and then let’s have that conversation. How can meaningful conversation happen without a thorough, public vetting of the situation?

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

This is a timely article on an important subject. For the best insight IMO, go to Brent Nyitray's comment nearby. The dual mandate (stable prices AND low unemployment) just doesn't work. President Carter and Congress didn't want to deal with the fiscal issues that stress the economy, so they offloaded the "full employment" mandate to the Fed, which does not have the tools for this. This is what has caused the money printing, the QE, ALL of the Fed's excesses - it's their legislated duty, yet they have no control over things like spending and taxes. When unemployment rises, they are forced to print excess money. To avoid recessions, we just pile up debt for our grandkids, unfortunately to a level that our Republic may not be able to overcome.

Another excellent comment was Asa Plinches observation. Sorry conspiracy theorists, but Wall Street did not cause the crash in 2008 - government policy did, and Wall Street took full advantage of the government's dumb but legal policies (remember "liar loans?" Remember Finance Chair Barney Frank saying "Let's roll the dice!"?). That's what markets do.

As others here have pointed out, excess money creation has inflated assets - that's why the markets keep rising and why housing prices have gone up so much. It's not our genius as investors (I hope you are investing) and it's certainly not genius on the part of our elected officials. It's excess money creation.

Abolishing the Fed is a dumb idea. We have one of the most stable currencies in the world. Do you want to put people like Biden and Trump in charge of money supply? I don't.

Solution: abolish the dual mandate.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Yes, Barney Frank…everyone deserves a home.

Expand full comment
Denise Tener's avatar

I don't know enough about this, but maybe we should regulate Private Equity stuff.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Perhaps. I’ve never really studied PE either. Our debt has created too much money chasing too few assets, hence rising prices. PE mostly represents the money of the rich seeking different kinds of investments.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Biden or Trump in charge of money supply? A great image for Halloween!

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Can you imagine? Biden would stuff a wad of bills in your pocket, and Trump will hand you a free "Trump Watch".

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

It was comical watching "Biden" being hamstrung from blaming inflation on QE, even though Elementary School math made the impact observable. One reason "Biden" couldn't say it out loud is because it would have reflected badly on his boss, B. Hussein O., which is never allowed under any circumstance.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Also Biden's plan was to zap up another couple trillion dollars to pay for another huge boondoggle -- can't very well do that while you're admitting that printing money causes inflation.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

Sounds like a bunch of rich people playing money games and minting new acronyms to make themselves richer.

Expand full comment
Asa Plinch's avatar

Sorry, Matt, the "Wall Street firms that caused the 2008 financial crisis" did not cause it --though they helped it along. The Federal Government (with the help of the Federal Reserve) policy of pushing for home ownership via the Community Reinvestment Act caused it. See Peter Wallison's excellent book (Hidden in Plain Sight). "This book extensively documents this view. For example, it shows that in June 2008, before the crisis, 56 percent of all US mortgages were subprime or otherwise low-quality. Of these, 76 percent were on the books of government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When these mortgages defaulted in 2007 and 2008, they drove down housing prices and weakened banks and other mortgage holders, causing the crisis."

Expand full comment
Ellen Evans's avatar

Asa, the author of this article, like most Racket pieces on monetary policy, is Eric Salzman, not Matt Taibbi.

Expand full comment
Bonnie Blodgett's avatar

Not that simple. The crisis was a perfect storm of mistakes made over decades whose purpose was to rob the poor and exploit the unsuspecting. This is always the game. And it's always played in the name of FREEDOM! Any time you have a massive wealth transfer, there will be a host of "competing" narratives created to confuse people as to its cause. Whose to blame? Apparently, no one. Or at any rate, not me.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Allowing unqualified buyers buy homes with bad credit was another government experiment. Didn’t work out well

Expand full comment
Petty Rage Machine's avatar

The same entities that caused the environment from which ZIRP was born are the same entities which benefited the most from it (and continue to benefit contra).

The Federal Reserve wields too much power to be “independent.” It is too easily corruptible because it is too small and unspecialized. The people who are governors need to be more autistic than Rainman. As governors, Comparing Lisa Cook to Stephen Miran, for example, is embarrassing.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Debtors love inflation because it reduces the real cost of their debt.

And nobody is more in debt than the US government.

Expand full comment
Petty Rage Machine's avatar

Ya except it’s Monopoly money we’re playing with in that realm because all the world’s a stage… of USD reserves.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

This is why the founders said only silver and gold.

Not to maximize GDP, but to stop the bankers and government from colluding to print the wealth out from under us.

Expand full comment
Petty Rage Machine's avatar

Yea and then what happened. If we start running down this list you just end up in an endless number of extremely bad financial decisions that were done - at the time - to keep a bunch of really rich people richer.

We need PE ratios and atomic measures of success and failure as well as short side markets - because of, uh, insurance and performance. Right. That’s how it’ll all be used. For insurance by the hard workers planting corn. Imagine all of this man. And performance? It’s a solid measure don’t worry.

Imagine you take a Time Machine back in time and tell one of these geniuses, hey, did you know that you can make fractional bets on the closing price of the broader market on a daily basis? Hourly? But don’t worry because to be able to do that is zero sum *wink wink* gotta own the underlying.

Anyway yea, the banks with the algos turning into super intelligent AI making decisions at the millisecond level own all the underlying.

It’s totally not a casino. Those are less rigged.

Expand full comment
Paul Edwards's avatar

In a sane country, which we have never experienced, there would be no such monster as the Fed. That system was a Capitalist contrivance organized so that a quasi-private entity could actually loan money to its own government which is absurd on its face. Sanity would put the creation of money exclusively in the hands of the Treasury and cut out all the ludicrous and criminal chicanery of the various bloodleeching Capitalist devices for fucking the public. This, of course, will never be as Capitalism forbids any concern for people from obstructing its larceny and theft. It is the bane of the world and has given us the sickening goat's nest we have today in The Empire and across the world.

Expand full comment
Ellen Evans's avatar

This is not capitalism, it's corporatism, which is another animal entirely. In genuine capitalism, there would be no government leverage, no federal picking of "winners" and "losers," no such thing as "too big to fail."

Expand full comment
Paul Edwards's avatar

A meaningless distinction. There is no classic Capitalism, evil as it was, and hasn't been for a lifetime. Do you presume to defend a dead thing? What's your point?

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

You’re very confused if you think Capitalism is evil.

Expand full comment
Paul Edwards's avatar

You're a propagandized, hoodwinked imbecile.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Oh how I love these intelligent debates

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

I’m willing to bet Paul can’t define woman.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

You must be a banker - we’ll deal with you soon enough, sir.

Expand full comment
Ellen Evans's avatar

No matter how long it has not been used, Latin is not classical Greek, and it is useless as well as inapt to call it so.

Expand full comment
Paul Edwards's avatar

Is this supposed to be a riposte to anything in particular? Do you have a thought process? Are you able to follow an argument?

Expand full comment
Ellen Evans's avatar

It is an example of two things which are not the same, as capitalism and corporatism are not the same, and an additional indicator that I do not think calling a zebra a pony is acceptable, being inaccurate.

Unless words actually mean what they mean (like "man" and "woman"), communication between people becomes impossible.

Of course, that is precisely what a lot of the left wants.

Expand full comment
Paul Edwards's avatar

The "Left" is another of your slipshod hallucinations. Like Classic Capitalism, it doesn't exist in America, and hasn't for a hundred years. Educate yourself before attempting to instruct your intellectual superiors.

Expand full comment
Richard Harris's avatar

Great analysis…the kind of serious, in-depth reporting we need from our other erstwhile journalists. The analogy with COVID/Gain-of-Function is quite apt. In both arenas as well as national security policy, environmental regulation and more the underlying issue is always the same: unaccountable experts/administrators. Jerome Powell, Anthony Fauci, John Brennan, Michael Reagan were all beyond the reach of Congress. Consent of the governed…not so much. This is the real constitutional crisis of our time.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

I thought the GOF analogy was insightful as well.

I lay most of the blame at Congress. We have a re-election rate that rivals the old Soviet Union. They all get rich. Their friends get rich. And they dodge the serious issues Americans of every stripe care about. That's why the courts are forced to be so active, and the Executive branch is doing so much quasi-legislating.

Expand full comment
Richard Harris's avatar

Yes, Political Scientists have documented and analyzed declining turnover rates in Congress...this started in the early 20th C. And you're right that Congress has basically abdicated its legislative function. But there is more going on...wouldn't one think that members of Congress would act more assertively if they occupied safe seats? A good explanation can be found in a book I used to use in a Legislative Process course I taught, Morris Fiorina's 1989 study, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (its short...under 200 pp.)

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Sounds interesting, the book I mean. As for "safe seats", I guess that assumes they're settling in for a career. I'm a believer in term limits as an incentive to act assertively. One might even assume the welfare of the country might be incentive enough to act assertively. Sigh.

Expand full comment
DC's avatar

We desperately need campaign finance reform and a repeal of Citizens United. Congressional elections are won by outside interests including foreign agents.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

I would like to see campaign finance reform also, along with term limits, trading restrictions on sitting legislators, an end to gerrymandering, etc.

The problem, of course, is that Congress would have to enact any such legislation. Most of them are too beholden to the machinery that got them elected and will ensure their wealth to support such measures.

Expand full comment
John Wygertz's avatar

Free money! What could possibly go wrong? We're all gonna get RICH!!!!

Expand full comment