Neither one of the US candidates appeals to me. — Athena

In short, just having two political parties simply cannot be representive of what a population wants.
That's the problem. In fact, when these two entrenched parties agree on something, the matter isn't discussed at all, but given as a law of nature. It also creates the bedrock for corruption and the negative aspects of US politics.

Yes, even if there would be more candidates that have a realistic chance that they might win, you still might be disappointed. Yet with just basically a right-wing party and a centrist one, you won't have enough choices. The whole "primaries" thing is a stupid charade, where people hope to change political parties from inside.

I want to acknowledge your post. What do you think of Rank Choice Voting?

What is ranked choice voting?

RCV is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. Consider a race where four candidates – A, B, C, and D – are running for a single seat such as Governor. In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as “1” being the voter’s highest preference for Governor. If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election. But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of support is eliminated, the second choice support for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half of the vote.

For example, let’s say a voter prefers, in ranked order, candidate B, C, D, and then A. But, no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the first round, and candidate B receives the least first choice support. Candidate B is eliminated, and support for candidate B are distributed to the voter’s second choice, which in this case is candidate C. This process repeats until a candidate has a majority of the vote.
https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIh-zMpvaIiAMVug6tBh0H6DBYEAAYASAAEgJI6PD_BwE — DemocracyU Accountability

In almost every election for several years I wanted to vote for someone who is not a Democrat nor a Republican but I didn't because always it is either one of the two parties that win, and the risk of the worst one winning is too high. We have to change this very corrupt two-party system. We have to open the possibility for someone outside of the two-party system to win.

Actually we have that in Finland with the Presidential elections as we have a multiparty system with three or four large similar voter base having parties and then small parties.

Elections have to be simple enough for people to understand them. This what you stated (RCV) is one of the clearest ways. If there are a multiple of candidates that get similar amount of votes (something that doesn't happen in the US with it's duopoly in political parties) and nobody gets 50% on the first round, then there's a second round with two candidates that got the most votes. The picking of the two best is enough usually. Having election day twice isn't too much.

It's simple and easy to understand.

I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.

What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level.

An isolationist America would be a godsend to the world.

But we all know that's not going to happen. The US thrives on ceaseless meddling.

I hope one of these days the American people will suffer actual blowblack under Washington's policies, and be confronted with consequences for continually exporting suffering to the rest of the world.

Maybe that's what is required to open some eyes.

I can see that blowback coming with the present US support of Israel. That could have played a strong roll in removing Biden from the Democratic ticket. He lost me on that one and if the Republicans offered a better candidate than Trump they could get me if Kamala continues to announce her support of Israel.

This is not anti-Semitic as Arabs are also Semitic but it is anti-Zionism. Zionism has been the cause of the fighting from the beginning. It is not a democracy like the US and if it were the problem would have been resolved democratically.

You made me look for a book on the subject and there are several. The one I want most is over $100. :scream: How sad that we leave people ignorant by overpricing books. But I am thinking if my life falls apart and I have to reorganize it. I should buy all the related books and study them and then attempt to organize a club of interested people.

You do know most of us (US) are totally ignorant of the rest of the world, right? Forgive me, I know nothing of your elector system, nor that there was anything to learn of it. This is a grievous error for someone committed to democracy.

We had a chance to vote on having a better voting system and the only media-type information we got is the new system was never tried. I knew that was a lie but I did not know how big the lie is. God help me, there is so much I do not know and so much to learn.

I would say you are explicitly incorrect, or are misusing hte term Fascism which is quite specific, and not just an indicator of violent governmental enforcement.

The U.S isn't even sniffing the arse of fascism currently.

I would say you are explicitly incorrect, or are misusing hte term Fascism which is quite specific, and not just an indicator of violent governmental enforcement. — AmadeusD

Of course, you have studied bureaucratic order, public policy and administration, and know what you are talking about. But then you would be unusual. Not many people find that area of study interesting. But some who understand the fascist relationship with economics might not agree with you.

Fascists have commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism and relegate it to the state. However, fascism does support private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals. Thus, fascist ideology included both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements.

Economics of fascism - Wikipedia

However, someone as good-looking as your avatar doesn't have to know everything. :grin:

Trump goes so far as to claim we will never have to vote again if he is elected because he will resolve all our problems for us. Kamala Harris promises to raise minimum wages but I don't know how this can happen without inflation and closing businesses that depend on cheap labor. I don't think we know enough to make good judgments and this thread is about global ramifications. — Athena

If you weigh the two options, one promise is that you will never vote again, indicating Trump will become ruler without any election and the other is an economic policy that may or may not have adverse consequences for businesses, do you think they are on the same level of constitutionality?

Policy choice A: the abolition of a fundamental tenet of democratic rule, free elections
Policy choice B: an economic measure within a package of a whole lot of others that might have adverse consequences for business.
.......
The two cannot be compared in relation to the threat to democratic government.

Through this forum, I have learned what I consider a fascist order is throughout Europe and this must be so because of the competition for world resources. We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. Technology is changing our lives a lot and that includes the power of governments. Elements of fascism and for sure technology make a government strong. Education is very important to all this. — Athena

What would make you say that? A fascist order is an order in which the state is held in supreme regard. The body politic is mass mobilized for the good of the state and individual rights are abolished in name of some kind of social unity, it is generally a nationalist and militarist creed.

This encyclopedia Brittanica's definition: "Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."

I assure you no government is as of yet fascist in Europe. Sure we have a state bureaucracy, thank god, but we are allowed to own businesses, we have human rights and thank heavens they are even oftentimes respected. We can vote our leaders our leaders out of office, express opinions contrary to the state and in many countries military service is abolished. You might think every infringement on the free market is 'fascist', but that is a mistake. Actually every type of market economy needs a substantial amount of regulation to keep markets at least semi-free.

We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. — Athena

What just say now, uttered in a side sentence, is actually a deep seated fascist belief. Our nation is necessarily in competition with yours and it cannot be any other way. That is a fascist line of reasoning because it legitimates authoritarian state control. However even the history of the United States itself shows that cooperation trumps conflict. Fascism might be closer to your home than you may think...

some who understand the fascist relationship with economics might not agree with you — Athena

True - I suppose I would be looking for how you can instantiate an entire political mode from economics.. Though, i understand the 'slippery slope' aspect of seemingly-innocent policy changes.

However, someone as good-looking as your avatar doesn't have to know everything — Athena

AWww shucks :P

What should the EU do when Trump wins the next election?

Have you no highly skilled assassins? Have you no advanced voting machine hackers? Have you no experts at insidious anti-Trump propaganda? Have you no skilled spies, infiltrators, and manipulators? Have you no personal-sized warhead guided missiles? Have you no war ships to mine our harbors in protest? Could you not seize control of Tesla's navigation systems to direct Elon's cars to attack Trump wherever he is? Ram, blow up, whatever?

Or is the EU just a bunch of feckless liberals with a sickly inability to use force?

Have you no balls?

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president.

Let's see who comes out stronger in the debate.

Edit: not that it makes sense, but if we're having an apocalypse in a few months, who would you vote for?

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president. — L'éléphant

...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president.
— L'éléphant — L'éléphant

[quot3= Relativist
..until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).

What exactly is a president supposed to do for the economy? Isn't that fascist? The government running the economy? Is that what we want?

How about the international concerns like the US banking crashes that pull down other economies? Don't we need to govern against such disaster? By we I mean the whole world. Do we know enough to make good economic decisions?

My girlfriend's sock was pulled off her foot in such a way that it looks like the head of a dead pig. I'd reckon there's more philosophy there, than in this entire post...

I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.

What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level. — ssu

Thank you. We have the problem of one candidate getting the popular vote and the other one winning because of the Electoral College which gives some states more importance than others.

[/quote]The Electoral College is not a physical place. It is a process which includes the: Selection of electors. Meeting of electors who cast votes for the president and vice president. Counting of the electors' votes by Congress.

Electoral College | USAGov

USA.gov
https://www.usa.gov › ... › How the president is elected [/quote]

We have red states and blue states and I don't think the Electoral College was designed with this culture division in mind? And the economic division is interesting. Democratic states have done better economically making our argument about the President's impact on the economy skewed. People in different states have different realities and it is kind of nuts we argue so much about the President's impact when the reality is different in different states. https://gppreview.com/2020/02/21/growing-divide-red-states-vs-blue-states/

Have you no highly skilled assassins? — BC

:lol:

do you think they are on the same level of constitutionality? — Tobias

What a delicious question. :nerd: Also what does the US Constitution have to do with the power of a president? US presidents gained a lot of power during the Roosevelt administration and again with Reagan and again after 911. Hum, I am thinking I need to be more careful because this is a serious subject and I hope you demand a good reply and don't let me slide with unsupported insinuations. I found a link that makes my point.

For most of the nineteenth century, the presidency was a weak institution. In unusual circumstances, a Jefferson, a Jackson, or a Lincoln might exercise extraordinary power, but most presidents held little influence over the congressional barons or provincial chieftains who actually steered the government. The president’s job was to execute policy, rarely to make it. Policy making was the responsibility of legislators, particularly the leaders of the House and Senate.

Today, the presidency has become the dominant force in national policy formation, not all domestic policy springs from the White House but none is made without the president’s involvement. And when it comes to foreign policy and, particularly security policy, there can be little doubt about presidential primacy. Of course, Congress retains the constitutional power to declare war, but the power has not been exercised in sixty-five years. During this period American military forces have been engaged in numerous conflicts all over the world—at the behest of the president....

while the power to persuade and other leadership abilities wax and wane with successive presidents, the power of the presidency has increased inexorably, perhaps growing more rapidly under the Roosevelts and Reagans and less so under the Fillmores and Carters of American politics but growing nonetheless.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2016/05/17/the-growth-of-presidential-power/

That is not a full explanation but I doubt anyone regular citizen can provide a more detailed explanation and it is citizen ignorance and complacy that gives the President so much power. We are not politically aware and Trump shares a lot with Hitler. If you want to question me, I will attempt to give answers.

What would make you say that? A fascist order is an order in which the state is held in supreme regard. The body politic is mass mobilized for the good of the state and individual rights are abolished in the name of some kind of social unity, it is generally a nationalist and militarist creed. — Tobias

That is an agreeable statement. Now we can make abortion illegal and we can ban books and in some states, Christianity can control education but fortunately, Texas teachers did win their supreme court battle with the Texas' efforts to mandate Creationism be taught as legitimate science. "Some kind of "social unity" is Christianity. Education for technology does not defend democracy in the classroom and Trump is our Hitler. I hope you take into consideration Germany was a Christian Republic. The book "The Founding Myth" by Andrew L. Seidel explains "Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American".Yes it is a nationalist and militarist creed doing God's "power and glory" with high-tech military abilities that can be used without a congressional declaration of war.

I should say, I write with concerns, not facts that I am sure of. Unless people are working with the bible and for the kingdom of God, how can they imagine it is a good thing that someone running for the presidency would think it is a good thing for this person to announce once he is elected they will never have to vote again? Constitutionally "The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the number of terms a person can serve as President to two." What is Trump promising us when he says we will never have to vote again?

What a delicious question. :nerd: Also what does the US Constitution have to do with the power of a president? US presidents gained a lot of power during the Roosevelt administration and again with Reagan and again after 911. Hum, I am thinking I need to be more careful because this is a serious subject and I hope you demand a good reply and don't let me slide with unsupported insinuations. I found a link that makes my point. — Athena

What I mean is, you seem to equate the promise 'you will never need to vote again' on a par with the promise to raise minimum wages. The first comes down to the abolition of democracy the second may have good or bad economic consequences. They are not on the same level. You seem to present them as a dilemma, but they are not. One is an outright attack on the constitutional order the other a rather mundane policy proposal. The constitution has everything to do with the power of the president as the constitution circumscribe his or her power, that is what constitutions do, among other things.

That is not a full explanation but I doubt anyone regular citizen can provide a more detailed explanation and it is citizen ignorance and complacy that gives the President so much power. We are not politically aware and Trump shares a lot with Hitler. If you want to question me, I will attempt to give answers.

No, I think your quote is spot on and actually chimes in will with insights from political science. There is a shift from legislative to administrative power. Actually we may witness that in Europe as well. The US system though is already strongly presidential. The president of the US has a lot more power institutionally speaking than say, the president of Germany.

From the rest of your post I think we agree. But then, if we do, why would you say you do not support Harris? You might dislike her political views but at least she allows for the possibility you vote her out of office again... I do not know if Christian nationalism is 'unamerican', neither do I know if fascism is 'un-german', or that war crimes are 'un-dutch'. I do not think there is anything like an immutable character to a nation. All I know is that institutions need to be defended, because the institutional structure can come down. I'd be be worried of any candidate that promises to overturn the constitutional order.

What I mean is, you seem to equate the promise 'you will never need to vote again' on a par with the promise to raise minimum wages. The first comes down to the abolition of democracy the second may have good or bad economic consequences. They are not on the same level. You seem to present them as a dilemma, but they are not. One is an outright attack on the constitutional order the other a rather mundane policy proposal. The constitution has everything to do with the power of the president as the constitution circumscribe his or her power, that is what constitutions do, among other things. — Tobias

I appreciate the distinction you made between the candidates. They are both stupid promises! Can I please have another choice? :lol:

However, saying the constitution has everything to do with the power of the president makes no sense to me because I know more and more power has been given to the president. On the other hand things completely out of our control happen and talking as though one person is responsible for that is lacking in logic. That lack of logic seems to go with believing this one person will give us something we want. :brow:

The president of the US has a lot more power institutionally speaking than say, the president of Germany. — Tobias

Please tell more about Germany because this is so paradoxical. The US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education and picked up German military ideas as well. However, I have come across info that makes me think the Germans are doing better. Such as you saying the German president does not have as much power as a US president and I think that means the Germans are doing something right that US is not doing. I read education in Germany encourages the young to pay attention to their personal experience instead of the US's excessive focus on empirical information.

Trump did not just promise to overturn the constitutional order, he acted on the willingness to do so. What is alarming to me is some people do not see that, and states that attempted to keep Trump off the ballot were prevented from doing so. How some can not see the danger Trump presents is a mystery to me. People who know he is a liar still believe he will keep his promises. That amazes me. It is his followers that lead me to say he is our Hitler. What is happening is more than the story of one man. It is also a story of our political climate.

So what steps can be taken to better protect our institutions?

I have to add, I don't think a presidential candidate should promise to raise minimum wages because I don't see how that can be done without creating inflation. I would like to know what others think of that.

I appreciate the distinction you made between the candidates. They are both stupid promises! Can I please have another choice? :lol: — Athena

No you cannot. They are not both stupid promises. One is a danger to democracy the other might be unwise, though I do not really know, I do not know nearly enough about US the economic situation. In any case the two promises are on utterly different scales, that is the problem. So no, there is no 'other choice', there is a rather existential one to make.

Please tell more about Germany because this is so paradoxical. The US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education and picked up German military ideas as well. However, I have come across info that makes me think the Germans are doing better. Such as you saying the German president does not have as much power as a US president and I think that means the Germans are doing something right that US is not doing. I read education in Germany encourages the young to pay attention to their personal experience instead of the US's excessive focus on empirical information. — Athena

Well, I do not know about 'better' but they are different forms of government and that is because they have a different constitutional system. The constitution has everything to do with the amount of power a president has and also which checks and balances are in place. Not just the constitutional document as such but the whole constitutional order. Now in the German constitutional order the president is mostly a ceremonial figurehead, an elder statesman. Currently it is Walther Steinmaier. He is not the head of government though, the head of government is the chancellor, similar to a prime minister, a title unknown in the US. It is precisely the constitution that creates such differences. Now the German constitution (Basic law) has been written just after the second world war, with the prime imperative being to prevent a power grab by any one person or party. Germany has coalition governments also something unknown in the US. That is because it does not have a 'winner takes all' constitutional system. The funny thing is the German basic law has been inspired by the constitutions of the allied nations, including the US.

See, things are never clear cut. Of course the US has taken over ideas from German education because Germany was arguable the most advanced country in the 19th century, However, the Germans must have learned a thing or two about bureaucracy from the French, bureau being a French word after all.

Currently I think serious flaws in the US constitutional system are appearing, but so are they in Europe. Constitutional systems and institutional designs can add to the resilience of a political system, but they can never make it endure. The US constitution is actually a logical one given the US history and the wish to curb the dominance of the most populous states, but it ends up being a system in which only a few votes from people in a few states really matter. The US system, especially the politicization of the supreme court, leads to a very partisan and competitive democracy. It has its good sides, people are connected to their politicians, but it also has its bad sides, a tendency for polarization.

As for the minimum wage question, I am no economist. I will therefore pass on that question. I think there might be options though, you could for instance bring top tier incomes down through taxation to name one...

Well, I do not know about 'better' but they are different forms of government and that is because they have a different constitutional system. The constitution has everything to do with the amount of power a president has and also which checks and balances are in place. Not just the constitutional document as such but the whole constitutional order. Now in the German constitutional order the president is mostly a ceremonial figurehead, an elder statesman. Currently it is Walther Steinmaier. He is not the head of government though, the head of government is the chancellor, similar to a prime minister, a title unknown in the US. It is precisely the constitution that creates such differences. Now the German constitution (Basic law) has been written just after the second world war, with the prime imperative being to prevent a power grab by any one person or party. Germany has coalition governments also something unknown in the US. That is because it does not have a 'winner takes all' constitutional system. The funny thing is the German basic law has been inspired by the constitutions of the allied nations, including the US.

See, things are never clear cut. Of course the US has taken over ideas from German education because Germany was arguable the most advanced country in the 19th century, However, the Germans must have learned a thing or two about bureaucracy from the French, bureau being a French word after all.

Currently I think serious flaws in the US constitutional system are appearing, but so are they in Europe. Constitutional systems and institutional designs can add to the resilience of a political system, but they can never make it endure. The US constitution is actually a logical one given the US history and the wish to curb the dominance of the most populous states, but it ends up being a system in which only a few votes from people in a few states really matter. The US system, especially the politicization of the supreme court, leads to a very partisan and competitive democracy. It has its good sides, people are connected to their politicians, but it also has its bad sides, a tendency for polarization.

As for the minimum wage question, I am no economist. I will therefore pass on that question. I think there might be options though, you could for instance bring top tier incomes down through taxation to name one... — Tobias

Wow! that is a wonderful post! You made me order a book The German Polity. I can not trust my brain to remember what you said of a week from now, find my way back to your post.

Germans may have learned bureaucratic order from others but I think what put them over the top was the Prussian military order. I hate this, when I go to explain something, I realize I don't have enough information. I will be watching my mail box for 3 books now. :roll: My daughter may have to take my bank card. :lol: But obviously I need more information.

Can we make a million copies of you and disperse them through the US so perhaps the citizens of the US will begin having reasonable discussions of the political and economic problems? It is so bloody obvious to some of us that extremes of income are problematic. It is also obvious that human beings are more likely to be civil if they have a good education, full bellies, and decent housing. Now this is way off topic so I will stop.

Thank you for being such a nice and well-informed person.

Thank you for being such a nice and well-informed person. — Athena

Thank you for your nice compliments! And of course for this interaction. :)

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president. — L'éléphant

...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement). — Relativist

True. But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies?

Do we know enough to make good economic decisions? — Athena

Sis, we have competent economists to answer your question. Yes, they know enough.

But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies? — L'éléphant

Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. So politically, it made more sense to do something when backs are against the wall in 2025.

The tax cuts passed under Trump (that he signed, but had nothing to do with the design) had pluses and minusses. On the plus side: corporate taxes were too high - corporations were reincorporating in other countries with lower corporate taxes. But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory -IOW, you can't judge the effect of Trump's policies on the statevof the economy during his term.

The current issue in the election pertains to what to do about this debt (and deficit). Harris wants to raise corporate taxes and to indirectly tax wealth (for people worth more than $100M). I guarantee Congress will moderate this, if anthing is to pass. On the other hand, Trump wants to address the problem with even LOWER Corporate taxes- which aren't needed, but may moderated to get legislation passed. But he's also pledged across the board 10% tarriffs on all imports. He can do this unilaterally (no new legislation needed), and it will raise prices on imported goods and start a trade war. It's a horrible idea.

Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. — Relativist

Not true. They passed the tax relief act during covid.

But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory — Relativist

Not true. The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago.

They passed the tax relief act during covid. — L'éléphant

Bipartisan support for COVID relief, during the crisis, doesn't imply there would be bipartisan support to increase taxes on corporations and the rich.

The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago. — L'éléphant

Of course, but I was focusing on the negative aspect of the tax cut, an effect that is long term. This was to support my overarching point that it makes no sense to judge any President on the state of the economy during his term. Both tax cuts and spending programs marginally stimulate the economy to some degree, but it takes economic modeling to estimate the net effect on employment, wages, and GDP growth. That modeling would try to take into account everything that affects the economy.

Sis, we have competent economists to answer your question. Yes, they know enough. — L'éléphant

:lol: Who is they? How many of them are there?