Why is Rashida Tlaib pushing legislation which will protect the banks?
"the primary purpose of the act is to protect minorities"
The last time I KYCd for some crypto de-fi stuff, I didn't have to mention my race, religion, sexuality, gender preference + whatever else these identity politics people like to obsess about.
It's actually one of the reasons I like crypto.
I'm almost certain crypto is going to empower poor and disadvantaged people simply by taking power away from central banks of rich countries. There is an awful lot of research from economists and international development professionals who think the same.
So I don't even know why the hell she or any person from the Democratic Socialists of America crew would be against it.
Rashida Tlaib is obviously a dangerous liar. I wonder if the retarded voters of Michigan's, 13th congressional district will keep supporting this clown.
Like most politicians, regardless of their ideology, she wants more power and more control over average citizen. And even if there is some kind of genuine left-wing agenda behind this, it could be explained by the reasoning that the monopoly of big banks is preferable to large number of small financial operators, because the former much be easier controlled, regulated and ultimately nationalised.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Do you really think they could nationalize the big banks? Maybe you should ask yourself again who it is that truly controls who.
That's the ultimate aim. State control over the economy is within the textbook definition of socialism. And one of the easiest way to achieve it is through state control over financial sector. It could, actually, be done and bank nationalisations aren't unheard of, even in today's capitalist world, although they usually occur on small scale and on case-by-case basis.
Whether Ms. Tlaib and her supportres have enough political support for such drastic measure is another question. My educated guess is "no" at this point, but it can change if so-called Overton Widnow moves further left in economic issues, probably in the next election cycle or two.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The decision on whether to nationalize a big bank is not about political support, it is about effective power, because although politicians can theoretically do many things that the law allows them, in practice what happens is something else. Let's not forget that in a world where people worship money as a god, power does not reside in the hands of whoever holds a government office or position, but who has control over the money supply. Ms. Tlaib wouldn't have gotten there without the people who finance her, and so she like everyone else. All politicians are bought and have owners. You would make a mistake in assuming that the great financial powers would simply stand idly by while politicians take away their power, particularly considering that they have not kept their hands off politics for the past few centuries.
That said, it is not necessary for the state, specifically, to control the banks for us to live in socialism. It is only necessary that the people who control the state, and the people who control the banks, are the same, thus forming a state that has the de facto power of the economy. We already live in that, because it is not the politicians who nationalized the banks, but the bankers who bought the state.
The others want power, but I think she is drawn into it because of her anti-Semitism which gets her a lot of support. She wants to stop Zuckerberg from creating a stable coin for all the wrong reasons when so many right reasons exist.