> In the usa we have an overemphasis on the president, but we’ve slow walked ourselves into a dysfunctional congress that just can’t do anything.
Isn't that cause and effect? In essence, what the US is showing is that the executive has so much power now that congress is largely obsolete.
If there was a better balance of power and less executive power, the only way the executive branch can get something done is to work with congress.
Obviously that doesn't work in all cases, conflict in particular. But in my experience that's where most democracies have drawn the line on executive power, basically for emergencies.
He was elected first in 2016. With that I think your whole analysis falls apart.
The Ukraine war also had a lot less impact on the us than it did in Europe. Europe was much more reliant on energy from Russia, and that was where the pain was in 2022/23/24.
It's popular politically because to voters it just looks like "our party will take away that expensive surcharge and make it cheaper at the till!". Unfortunately that message actually works.
If a race to the bottom is incentivized then federal oversight needs to maintain some standards… if a states policy consisted of being able to murder someone from another state, we have federal policy to keep that in check. States rights does not mean unchecked states rights.
> I'm not sure that replacing Visa and MasterCard is really that big of a sovereignty move considering the pervasive dominance American mobile OS tech has
So 'having an apple or Google phone' is equivalent to you to 'have every individual payment processed by visa/mastercard'?
Processing a payment means knowing who sent what to whom. I'm sure you don't care if I know what phone you have. But can I see every bank transaction you make? Every single purchase? No biggie, right?
Aside from the fact that this is maybe the next dependency to drop.
Why do you need a stablecoin if you can send the currency itself directly? If I have euros and the recipient wants euros, why would I need a stablecoin?
Not only is it a solution looking for a problem but it also opens up exchange fees and chance to be more easily robbed by North Korean government backed hackers looking to evade sanctions.
Wilders became the biggest in parliament, he didn't become prime minister.
Also, a US president is VASTLY more powerful than either a prime minister in NL or a kanseller in Germany. The US is also a bigger world power than any European country by itself. So the implications are different.
Wilders has never been prime minister, nor did we make him prime minister twice.
The US elected him twice. With the second time being after pretty much an attempted coup. This is bad judgment on another level IMHO
And again a prime minister in the Netherlands:
1. does not have the same amount of power as NL is smaller and doesn't put as much power in one person
2. Is always the head of a coalition government in which the extreme ideas have been tabled
Let's not forget that Trump is propping up the AfD and co. They are openly working together to split the EU apart. It's all financed by the same billionaires.
> Why doesn't he ban exports right away, forcing Europe to use their stockpiles anyways?
Because big oil doesn't like that.
And as others said, diesel is just one product. If you want to keep producing the other products you'll have to sell or store that diesel. The capacity is too much for the US alone and storing all excess capacity isn't feasible. So if he does it, there will be a surplus which means big oil will lose a large amount of money.
I can't speak to whether or not we have excess diesel, but the price would be high because U.S. diesel is sold outside of the united states, so if EU members are willing to pay higher $$$ for it, then that's what U.S. oil producers will sell it for, raising domestic prices in turn.
If you cannot export it because of a ban, you would have excess diesel yes. Assuming you keep refining at the same rate as demand for the other products hasn't gone down
Its only high on the west coast. That's because of multiple complicated reasons. Basically the west coast is an independent energy zone from the rest of the US. And California (where most of the refineries are for historical reasons) hasn't made very informed choices with its energy policy. Also, the oil they use comes from abroad while the oil in the rest of the US comes from domestic sources and the rest is exported. Also, there isn't a lot of heavy sour crude in the world and that's the type of oil that yields the most diesel.
There is a lot more to it, but its too complicated to explain in a post.
> Its only high on the west coast. That's because of multiple complicated reasons.
This takes any weight out of your argument, because it’s demonstrably false. I live in Michigan, and diesel was between 6.50 and 6.99 a gallon a couple days ago, which is a bit lower than it had been the week before.
A zillion gas price sites would also show that this statement is false. It is not just “the west coast”.
Isn't that cause and effect? In essence, what the US is showing is that the executive has so much power now that congress is largely obsolete.
If there was a better balance of power and less executive power, the only way the executive branch can get something done is to work with congress.
Obviously that doesn't work in all cases, conflict in particular. But in my experience that's where most democracies have drawn the line on executive power, basically for emergencies.
reply