because that's what you people do.
Which people? Europeans? People from the 17th Century? People who disagree with you? Over and over you have jumped to conclusions based on knowing nothing significant about me. All you know is I disagree with you on 1 specific subject. In fact, I'm not sure you even know what it is you disagree with. You just assume things based on, what? Race? You have assumed that you can legitimately assume things about 'Europeans', while assuming that 'Europeans' must think about the Americans the way you do about Europeans. Straight forward projection of your own biases.
All the super-rich crooks were actually still living it up in England, their own property safely protected from democracy through the House of Lords.
Basic order of events: The constitution was written after the revolutionary war. Those crooks had lost their stake in the US by the time the constitution came along. There was no upper-class, not by previous standards. 'Upper class' started to become what we think of it now: i.e. straight up wealth.
The people who own the country ought to govern it.
[The Elections of England] were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place
James Madison explaining why the US government shouldn't be like England's.
one of the richest Americans
I'm sorry, are you serious? Do you actually believe that federal/state distinctions are determined by who issues currency? Does that mean that Germany is part of a "European nation" because it uses the Euro while the UK is not? The current identification of currency with nations is a novel economic phenomenon, and one that probably isn't even going to last.
What formally delineates state versus federal systems is another matter. The fact that you don't understand the mechanics of modern money systems isn't my problem.
So what? The people who wrote the Constitution also wore wigs and smelled bad. What does that have to do with anything? What exactly are you trying to get at here?
You can't give out pompous indignation about ignorance of history, with credibility, while not understanding the significance of a constitution being written "by land owners for land owners" while the common modern interpretation is that it is "by the people for the people".
I know to Europeans, the US is just one big homogeneous mix of people
...which you just assumed for some reason, then...
Having spent a lot of time in Europe, I find Europeans to be profoundly ignorant of politics, history, or culture, even their own
...that's some sort of meta-irony.
Link to Original Source
Oh crying out loud, not this shit again? No wonder your country is so messed up. You are confusing structure with whether your representatives are elected democratically or not.
You are confusing Democracy with Representation, illustrated by you not seeing that 'partial democracy' is a contradiction in terms. Democracy isn't voting for things or electing leaders. Democracy is implementing policies reflective of the population's requirements. Representation and voting for representatives are just pragmatic routines. I would argue that in a real democracy you vote for policies and the people in office should be instantly recalled when they deviate from agreed policy. Representatives should be interchangeable, and 'leaders' shouldn't even exist in a democratic government. Electing leaders is not democracy
The US Constitution was also created on the concept of a limited federal government, states rights, and local self-determination.
The US Constitution was written by Google's ancestors. They had the same motivation to limit the federal government then as Google does now: The federal government is a competitor. Geographically connected states can be spanned, with little cost, by any company with enough resources, so a company can grow big enough to go toe-to-toe with a state government. Federal government, on the other hand, is harder to fight with.
The fact that inflation harms savings is simple elementary-school-level math. And since the real health of an economy is measured largely by production capacity + savings, any harm to savings is relative harm to the economy.
Savings are government deficit. For the non-government sector to save there has to be a surplus. For the non government sector to have a surplus the public sector must run a deficit. Every dollar in existence was issued through a deficit. Money is created out of nothing because that's the only way it can be created, but the government is almost always the last step in the process. And the obsession with inflation is pretty weird. Eco-metrics don't suffer. Numbers don't feel pain or starve to death. A real threat to sentient beings is from things like unemployment, social immobility, lack of education or healthcare. These are real social problems with real effects that are for more of a threat than the inflation boogy-man. The government issues currency mostly IN RESPONSE TO the non-government sector issuing debt. That debt HAS TO BE issued in order to fund savings and investment, which HAS TO happen in order for new jobs to be funded. Refusing simply stops new employment from being funded. These real social problems cause the economy to become deficient, reducing the usefulness of the economies sovereign currency, causing the government, when it HAS TO issue new currency to issue more and more as a simple reflection of the failing value of the currency caused by real social problems. The US can never be forced to default on a debt denominated in dollars. It just isn't possible. It can't even be forced to pay interest to foreign holders of debt. Governments pay interest to purely control interest rates. And dollars can only be spent in the US, so all add to aggregate demand for US products. If the debt is denominated in gold, it can default if it can't get enough gold.