Tweet
Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history
First of all, the original thread was not clearly presented. EJ, you showed us a clip offering the fact that it seemed the lawmakers, instead of taking their responsibility seriously, were instead, asking the bankersters themselves to write any new law needed to curtail their own adventures. While, as an adjunct, you offered us a written report from the 1930’s telling us about the attitudes of the time. But the latter does not report the same type of meeting involving the leaders of the banks being asked to devolve the responsibility of creating new law.
You might say I am splitting hairs, but the way you presented the debate does open up the potential to take this in another direction.
You have, repeatedly, opened us to the idea of a third, new political party; and I have in the past cajoled you to follow through and create one. But the very act of creating a question opens the mind to new thinking and that in turn has given me pause for thought.
We do not need a new party, we need new thinking.
Congress, as also, our House of Parliament here in the UK is specifically set up to act as the mechanism of oversight to the executive; the unelected people that “run” our respective nations. Both houses were set up with rules that suited the period of origination, but no longer serve the purpose.
We need a new set of rules.
The fact is, the way the present rules work does not provide an adequate oversight to the executive and the executive no longer works as a classic public service, but instead is driven my the influence of the needs of a very small group within our respective societies. We need to review how we provide that oversight. I have some ideas.
If classic “government” today, does not provide that oversight, what would we need to put into place that would strengthen the process? I have come to the conclusion that what we need to do is create our own, external, oversight system. Some form of completely independent reporting mechanism that will tell the people what is actually going on. In the earlier period, that would involve the likes of the Washington Post and here in the UK, The Times. But that mechanism is diminishing due to the influence of the internet and their revenue streams are now not following the strong, powerful voice of the old fashioned newspaper dropped onto the street corner of the past. Today the street corner has been replaced by the likes of iTulip. But that in turn is not as public as that old newspaper dropping onto the street each day. How do we replicate that drop?
We have to combine all the news mechanisms, old and new. And, more importantly still, we have to be much more proactive. We have to get out there and make the changes we see required; work. Get our respective hands dirty with both ink and electricity.
The primary problem is that the executive has created a set of rules that prevent the disclosure of what they themselves think. We are prevented from enquiring of they themselves by the very mechanism of government. We only see the debate from the utterances of the politicians.
My thoughts are these.
What we have at the moment is a secrecy mechanism that very effectively prevents any external debate about that internal debate. We only get to see what the executive wants the lawmakers to see. Here in the UK, for example, we have a thing called the 30 year rule. We cannot see any papers from the period today back 30 years. That very effectively prevents us from being able to form any view of who is doing what where.
How do we overcome the secrecy?
Every executive department should be lead by an elected chief executive who must in turn make all the internal debate, within their department, open to the public.
The likes of iTulip, Washington Post, The Times, should be able to report and openly debate with, every position paper produced by every senior member of the executive. The departments should be from now onwards open to scrutiny on a day by day basis. We should, from the exterior of government, be able to open up to view, everything that is connected with the government of our nations.
We should be able to see that bad advice our lawmakers have received and be able to open that debate to bring the “advisors from the departments” into view so that everyone could see for themselves who made what suggestion and by that mechanism, we would, from then onwards, be able to bring these individuals out to public scrutiny.
We need to bring the oversight of the executive away from the process of creating new law and into the new reporting mechanisms such as the internet.
Debate:
You might say I am splitting hairs, but the way you presented the debate does open up the potential to take this in another direction.
You have, repeatedly, opened us to the idea of a third, new political party; and I have in the past cajoled you to follow through and create one. But the very act of creating a question opens the mind to new thinking and that in turn has given me pause for thought.
We do not need a new party, we need new thinking.
Congress, as also, our House of Parliament here in the UK is specifically set up to act as the mechanism of oversight to the executive; the unelected people that “run” our respective nations. Both houses were set up with rules that suited the period of origination, but no longer serve the purpose.
We need a new set of rules.
The fact is, the way the present rules work does not provide an adequate oversight to the executive and the executive no longer works as a classic public service, but instead is driven my the influence of the needs of a very small group within our respective societies. We need to review how we provide that oversight. I have some ideas.
If classic “government” today, does not provide that oversight, what would we need to put into place that would strengthen the process? I have come to the conclusion that what we need to do is create our own, external, oversight system. Some form of completely independent reporting mechanism that will tell the people what is actually going on. In the earlier period, that would involve the likes of the Washington Post and here in the UK, The Times. But that mechanism is diminishing due to the influence of the internet and their revenue streams are now not following the strong, powerful voice of the old fashioned newspaper dropped onto the street corner of the past. Today the street corner has been replaced by the likes of iTulip. But that in turn is not as public as that old newspaper dropping onto the street each day. How do we replicate that drop?
We have to combine all the news mechanisms, old and new. And, more importantly still, we have to be much more proactive. We have to get out there and make the changes we see required; work. Get our respective hands dirty with both ink and electricity.
The primary problem is that the executive has created a set of rules that prevent the disclosure of what they themselves think. We are prevented from enquiring of they themselves by the very mechanism of government. We only see the debate from the utterances of the politicians.
My thoughts are these.
What we have at the moment is a secrecy mechanism that very effectively prevents any external debate about that internal debate. We only get to see what the executive wants the lawmakers to see. Here in the UK, for example, we have a thing called the 30 year rule. We cannot see any papers from the period today back 30 years. That very effectively prevents us from being able to form any view of who is doing what where.
How do we overcome the secrecy?
Every executive department should be lead by an elected chief executive who must in turn make all the internal debate, within their department, open to the public.
The likes of iTulip, Washington Post, The Times, should be able to report and openly debate with, every position paper produced by every senior member of the executive. The departments should be from now onwards open to scrutiny on a day by day basis. We should, from the exterior of government, be able to open up to view, everything that is connected with the government of our nations.
We should be able to see that bad advice our lawmakers have received and be able to open that debate to bring the “advisors from the departments” into view so that everyone could see for themselves who made what suggestion and by that mechanism, we would, from then onwards, be able to bring these individuals out to public scrutiny.
We need to bring the oversight of the executive away from the process of creating new law and into the new reporting mechanisms such as the internet.
Debate:
Comment