For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Sorry to be a little pessimistic, but no, I don't understand how this would ever work. Chances of getting a house vote scheduled on a single issue bill like this are nil. Sort of like asking lawyers to support in the repeal of the "unauthorized practice of law" statute. If this ever gained momentum, they stick it in as part of a larger bill and those who voted against it would say "they supported the proposal, but had to vote against other things in the bill".
Recall the tea party, and "we going to hold their feet to the fire". Ha ha ha ha It is easy to vastly underestimate the power of the entrenched interests.
It is a good inititiave in building a criticial mass of informated voters over time.
altho by extrapolation - one might infer that a big spike up in campaign contributions results in a big spike in the yellow stuff, appx 15-20years later?
so lets see - a big uptick in bribes... i mean contributions, in the 60's... and another, beginning in the 90's...
Tweet
. Now Columbia that's another story.
Comment