comment: >
  
  COVID is not the only reason for inflation. It’s easy to blame though.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  This is my favorite response so far… my thoughts: there definitely is a power in elected representation. I’ve been involved in local campaigns in my home state of Colorado, USA and have had the people running for re-election tell me of the power held over junior members based on their seniority - that’s why I feel we as Americans need to come together together about term limits in federal congress. 
  I’m saying to print trillions of dollars that previously didn’t exist to give households a relatively insignificant amount of money directly diluted our currency, caused massive inflation, and now we’re dealing with the federal reserve hiking interest rates to mitigate an issue the federal government caused.  What isn’t logical was printing that money in the first place but was, in my opinion, driven to garner more votes. 
  Second point: I don’t think you’re correct… the US dollar is the global standard for currency.  Ill advised political appeasing to the population giving us a few dollars in the name of stimulus certainly had a massive negative effect on the global economy we’re still muddling through. >
  
  For now the US dollar IS the only globally accepted fiat currency, really.  It’s a monitory fact of history.  This gives USA enormous trading leverage world wide.  Globalists would like to see that changed to a new global currency.  Regardless of being for or against a replacement global currency, the USA will suffer dearly if that day comes. >
  
  They lie and say whatever they need to so they can get elected. after that, they do as they want. Both sides. >
  
  The two sides definitely aren't IDENTICAL(As many foaming at the mouth progressive redditors would gladly tell you) but they're similarly disdainful of working class people, it just differs what working class people they hate.
  Republicans and reactionaries like them hate poor minorities, Democrats and progressive Neoliberals hate poor whites.
  Which one you think is worse will thereby affect which party you dislike more. >
  
  It's both. The American people want politicians to take large amounts of money from the rich, pocket most of it, and spend some on the middle class and poor. The American public believes we wouldn't have roads without this process being in place, so the politicians set up this system for the purpose of representing the American people. >
  
  I truly wish we as Americans would come together to the understanding that we would all greatly benefit from term limits in the federal house and senate as this would eliminate the hierarchy that is crushing the intent of local representation. 
  In example: Senator Manchin making a vote he felt best represented the people he’s representing and receiving incredible pressure internally and externally because it didn’t fall within party line. Same with Representative Cheney. >
  
  I think you’re broadening representation to where it doesn’t apply. The Senate was originally created to represent the interests of the states. The House of Representatives (like their counterparts at state and local levels) are the only ones who are representatives of the people. The Presidency wasn’t designed to represent the people, the Supreme Court wasn’t designed to represent the people, and neither was the Federal Reserve. 
  Has the spending been reckless? Of course, but that’s been the norm for decades. The Fed is made up of economists who don’t seek votes and don’t report to congress or any political entity, which truly a good thing (look at how congress handles public finance). One thing to keep in mind though is comparing public finance to personal finance is like comparing apples to oranges. Here’s an example: how many times have you heard politicians talking about us putting our grandchildren in a burden with our spending? It’s a regular and effective talking point. But what don’t they tell you? The last—and only—time the country was debt free was in 1835. Think about that. Since then, you, I and every other American has been “burdened” with debt. But I can only say for myself that I’ve never received a bill saying “here’s your share of the public debt. Please pay by xx.” Why not? Because unlike individuals and companies, the U.S. government has a monopoly on creating money. In theory, congress could eliminate the debt in an instant if desired by passing a resolution creating $30T earmarked specifically at the debt. Now that would cause massive issues if it happened but again, it’s power that the federal government has that no other American has. 
  When it comes to spending for votes, that’s unfortunately the norm for elected officials. The president, who has no impact on the job creation process will continue campaigning about creating jobs, lowering inflation, and fighting for the average American even though he knows he has zero authority or ability to do any of that, because voters generally don’t understand specifically what the role entails and it’s easier to win the popularity contest that way. Members of congress try to get federal funds to their district so they can brag to their voters and campaign for re-election. Any elected official’s first priority is reelection and the only way that changes is when term limits are imposed. >
  
  If the actions are based on idea of getting votes, it means that they are ones that population wants. In a representative democratic political system that is the sole reason for a politicians to be elected. I can't see why doing that wouldn't be logical. >
  
  Everyone seems to have forgotten about why all that money was needed during COVID. The line of thinking seems to go as follows: “A lot of money was spent during COVID, and everything is fine now, so we didn’t need to spend the money at all!” Nuh-uh. Everything was fine precisely because that money was spent. Money was necessary to be spent on healthcare, protecting the health of the population. Money was necessary to be spent on local businesses, so the engine of the economy would still be alive after the pandemic was over. Money was spent on unemployment benefits, at a time of record-high unemployment threatening widespread poverty. We appear to be in a phase of collective amnesia regarding government spending during COVID. People are only focusing on the number of dollars, completely forgetting why they were needed in the first place.