comment: >
  
  How does someone represent the views of, and fight for the needs of, the people they represent, without power, exactly?
  
  the trillions spent during COVID that, in my opinion, needlessly infused trillions of previously unavailable dollars in the USA economy triggering worldwide inflation and is now coupled with drastic measures by the federal reserve of hiking interest rates to correct the issue the government initiated in the first place
  
  That's not how the global economy works. 
  Also, do you call them drastic measures when the fed lowers rates?
  
  It seems these actions are not founded in logic! 
  
  How so?
  
  they are spending - and creating - this money to appease the populace to garner votes 
  
  Where do you think the money is meant to be spent? It's spent on the people and what their reps vote for, to... represent their needs.
context: Appeasing the population IS representing their interests. >
  
  Is it though? it is truly in the general populations interest to appease the masses? maybe me being naïve but I think the masses are greedy in nature in an individual level and we have representatives to quell this individual greed and make decisions that are best for the population they’re representing. >
  
  What's the difference between the general population and the masses?
  The general population ARE the masses, no? >
  
  Well, I don't think that's the problem he's trying to illustrate.
  It's more of a prisoner's dilemma problem. Appeasing the masses may not lead to a good result in the long run. >
  
  Sure, that's why democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. 
  So, I agree that democracy has its weaknesses but I think that's a different problem than what OP is claiming. If I understand correctly he/she is claiming that the democracy (in America) is not working as intended. The point is that democracy is intended to appease the masses. It's a feature not a bug. >
  
  No, the difference here, is that for example, if theoretically every single person assumed the best of all of their compatriots, and that everyone wanted to have policies that best benefit everyone, it would be different than if everyone assumed that everyone else is selfish and everyone's out to just try to get the most for themselves.
  So the way the masses is being "appeased" is sub-optimal, and if incentivized in a different way, perhaps there would be a conclusion where the "Masses" would all agree that is a better solution for all.
  I'm just outlining the problem though, I don't claim to have a solution >
  
  
  they are spending - and creating - this money to appease the populace to garner votes and lengthen their stay in power. 
  
  &
  
  it seems we aren’t being represented at all. 
  
  Pick one. >
  
  I am confused.  If they can only stay in power by appeasing the populace, is this not representation? >
  
  The people in power don't have to appease the populace if their interests are aligned with the people who own an extremely effective propaganda machine that presents two options, neither of which care about appeasing the populace.
  For example, when Bernie Sanders was beating Biden bad in the primary in ,2020 the democratic party via Obama convinced the rest of the candidates to drop out of the race even though some of them were beating Biden at the time. Then the media portrayed Biden as being the only option to beat Trump. even though polling showed both Biden and Bernie as beating Trump at the time.
  Always be aware of being presented only two options when there are clearly more >
  
  Politics have always been about power, the marvel of democracy is that if you want to keep that power you gotta compromise with the people who can take it away. >
  
  All politics are based on power.
  Before politics it was whoever had the biggest army and killed the most of their opponents maintained the power. We developed politics to allow people to pursue power without violence.
  However, we still have a ways to go. >
  
  At all? You don’t think the United States is at least slightly more representative than countries like North Korea or Russia? >
  
  Without a doubt. I’m not saying anything like that - I’ve been fortunate enough to have traveled extensively and can say without doubt the USA is still an incredibly place to live. 
  But I’m observing a perceived challenge in that I think is a rapidly expanding federal government when I feel they should be working harder than ever to reduce their impact, fall into a manageable budget, and let the more local entities be the institutions that are better funded as they’re more in tune with the local matter. >
  
  In the US in particular you can easily make the argument that the government represents the voting population probably as perfectly as it could. And please note the "voting" bolded bit. 
  The thing is, federally, thats what the government does. You're not going to change your local police force by voting for AOC or Sanders. Thats something that happens at a state and city level which, generally, younger people don't vote in or is aware it exist. And thats their fault. People today get too caught up in national or international politics and feel they aren't being represented because that pot hole near their home still isn't filled despite seeing huge federal infrastructure bills being pasted or US aid to other countries. 
  It's just not what that level of the government is for. The house and senate are going to be coming up with plans to build the US's influence globally. Not fix how shit the police force or school is in a particular city. And, you simply cant argue they haven't done that with great effect. The US is the most powerful and influential country in the world. 
  Adding, Angela Merkel was wrong. The world has had a decrease military for decades at this point and the idea was "yea, we'll just all be friends. We'll welcome Russia into the global economy" etc etc and the backfired hard. China also has realized this. They tried building in Africa without a military presents and tons of people were killed as a result. There are shitty people in the world and you have to protect yourself from them. Yea, ideally nobody would start wars or attack defenseless people, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in the actual world where if you cant secure trade lanes your economy is going to be fucked and then those people who you're apparently not representing are going to be pissed off.