How would YOU fix our economy, if you could

[Iamme]

Suppose YOU were in charge. Could you do it? Please don't get too cutesy and say stuff like we should abolish the entire government. (You know this ain't going to ever happen) Try to be realistic in what could actually happen.

And could you improve on the unemployment rate faster?

What woud you do about taxation, foreign trade (deficits) and ? Would you try to bring American production back home again? if so, how? What might be the ramifications, if we did?

This is a big subject, but it might bring in a lot of posts. The best post could go on to perhaps be sent to congressmen for consideration.

[Tony]

Id institute massive public work programs to create jobs.

[LuxFerum]

I would start an easy war.

[Gem]

Id institute massive public work programs to create jobs.

Coming from a liberterian? I'm surprised...

What kind of public work programs? Parks? Bridges?

Maybe even recycling plants to sort out plastic and paper from trash.

Gem

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem


Coming from a liberterian? I'm surprised...


Public work projects, unlike many other government programs, produce real, tangible results and assets. IMO it is preferable to welfare.

What kind of public work programs? Parks? Bridges?

That and other infrastructure projects.

Maybe even recycling plants to sort out plastic and paper from trash.

Perhaps, but only if it was privatized once it was established.

[Dancing David]

1. raise the minimum wage by two dollars an hour, that will generate wealth and create more jobs.

2. Institute a flat tax system where all income(including churches and not for profits) is taxed at a flat rate of ten to 15%. By excluding all exception(Except for maybe the bottom 15% od the population) then tax revenue will go up and we will see even lower taxes.

3. Make wierd forms of corporate takeover illegal, they just suck the money to the top and do not increase the means of production.

4. Free beer and condoms!

[dsm]

Institute various laws requiring that some percentage of all goods and services be done by American and (preferably) local residents of the place where the goods and services are ultimately sold.

[Iamme]

Tony---Remember my post about how someone suggested that we kill two birds with one stone, by instituting a works project where a 2000 mile Mexican border wall be built? Why isn't the government doing such projects if they work? Just curious.

Dancing David---I have heard that raising the minimum wage is actually bad. You are forcing companies who can't hardly afford to pay there employees NOW...let alone $2 more an hour. This will put many busineses, small and large out of business. The largest firms will simply send even MORE jobs overseas. The only way this could have even a remote chance of working is if the government puts the kabosh on jobs going overseas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iamme
Tony---Remember my post about how someone suggested that we kill two birds with one stone, by instituting a works project where a 2000 mile Mexican border wall be built?


Vaguely, can you refresh my memory?

Why isn't the government doing such projects if they work? Just curious.

Are you asking me to prescrip rationality to our government?

But to try to answer your question about why such projects are not being implemented if they work. Politics? Ideology? I honestly dont know.

IYO, do such projects work?

[sorgoth]

I would have limited welfare (1 year) and giant public works (As has already been mentioned. Bridges, roads, ect.)

I would kill the Tank program. I honestly cannot see how tanks could be efficiently used in today's wars, it's also a huge money hole.

Fines for speeding and illegal parking would be tripled, as would most other fines.

Prisoners would have to work.(Manual labour)

I would try to get all the surrouding countries to raise the tax on cigarettes at the same time as I do (So as to avoid too much black-market selling.)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
1. raise the minimum wage by two dollars an hour, that will generate wealth and create more jobs.

Please describe how, specifically.

[Whomp]

Off he top of my head, with no real research involved, how about doing away with income taxes, and start a federal sales tax of x% on everything but food?

Seems like the more money people make, the more they spend, the more they get taxed.

Or.... maybe not?

Whomp!

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

IYO, do such projects work?

Aren't they merely a "stopgap"? That is, a public works project is only a temporary rearrangement of capital from the general population to a specific area until the project is done. How should one decide who is deserving of the public works project (politically speaking, that is)?

I still wonder what the effect would be if there was (even an artificial) push toward "localization" -- that is, requiring goods and services to be (mostly) locally created products.

[corplinx]

I would do nothing. The last you want is someone trying to put reigns on an untameable horse.

The economy isnt a problem to be fixed. Its a system so complex that its nearly chaotic (Gleick chaotic that is).

In general, you should leave it alone.

[Random]

I would like to guarantee free government produced food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care to all American citizens, eliminate the minimum wage, and institute a minimum income requirement to avoid mandatory birth control (Norplants for the poor!). If you want to work in order to obtain luxuries (food that tastes good, designer clothing, a house as opposed to a government dormitory, TV, Cable, etc.) you are free to. If you wish to be a parasite and live on the dole, you can do that as well, taking yourself out of the productive stream where you can’t hurt anybody.

This is why I will never be elected president (not that that stops people these days:D ).

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iamme
[B.

Dancing David---I have heard that raising the minimum wage is actually bad. You are forcing companies who can't hardly afford to pay there employees NOW...let alone $2 more an hour. This will put many busineses, small and large out of business. The largest firms will simply send even MORE jobs overseas. The only way this could have even a remote chance of working is if the government puts the kabosh on jobs going overseas. [/B]

Well, that is the excuse used by large bussiness, but th eonly bussineses it harms are the small ones. You asked what i would do, I say if you increase the minimum wage that you will improve the conomy by adding more wealth.Uh, jobs already are going over seas, you don't think that gas station attendants are going to work overseas do you, most of the minimum wages jobs are in the service economy, not manufacturing. Just my two cents.

This is what we get for trusting the plutocrats!

What you are discussing is 'protectionism' which is anti capitalist, I think that having american goods for americans is a form of socialism, but it is the large companies that benefit from the economy of scale.

I am afraid the geniee is out of the bottle already.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Please describe how, specifically.

Just as an idea, don't have more than a vauge justification,

where is your plan?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by dsm
Institute various laws requiring that some percentage of all goods and services be done by American and (preferably) local residents of the place where the goods and services are ultimately sold.

Once the foreign competition is suppressed by law, there would be less motivation to fight it through other means (such as increased production efficiency, price incentives, etc.)

Laws encourgaging consumption of locally produced goods run counter to the tendency of industries to locate in those places where the natural resources and worker skills are best suited to the process.

Aside from these facts, I'd just prefer that we all valued economic freedom more than the (apparently) increased stability that government control has to offer.

[dsm]

Originally posted by phildonnia

Once the foreign competition is suppressed by law, there would be less motivation to fight it through other means (such as increased production efficiency, price incentives, etc.)


But would there be a need to fight it?? If the economy is "localized" (for lack of a better word), the economy would tend to balance itself as businesses would only be able to charge what the local buyers could afford. If reducing the price of the goods would enable more of the goods to be bought in the local economy, then there would be a natural incentive for businesses to do just that.


Laws encourgaging consumption of locally produced goods run counter to the tendency of industries to locate in those places where the natural resources and worker skills are best suited to the process.


True -- we may have to modify "localization" to allow for the movement of resources from locale to locale. While this may make business somewhat unstable, I think it will make the lives of the workers more stable as it will incentivize businesses to come in and provide jobs if they want to sell their goods locally.


Aside from these facts, I'd just prefer that we all valued economic freedom more than the (apparently) increased stability that government control has to offer.

The problem I think is that, as the world continues to grow up, more underprivileged countries are going to come online and provide cheap resources to businesses. This will create a constant instability in the lives of the general worker as businesses uproot themselves and move to take advantage of the cheap resources leaving behind a jobless mess. "Localization" might make things more stable for the worker, but it might also decrease productivity.

Admittedly, this is still vague and counter to the normal business model, but I wonder if it could be made to work...

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Just as an idea, don't have more than a vauge justification,

where is your plan?

My plan would entail preventing the government from meddling in economic affairs. corplinx hit the nail on the head.
A fellow by the name of Smith comes to mind...

As for your idea about raising the minimum wage, study of rudimentary economics will demonstrate that doing so will not achieve the results you suggested. It may sound good on the surface, but more thorough review of the effects on the market system yield demonstrable, adverse effects on the economy.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by dsm
I still wonder what the effect would be if there was (even an artificial) push toward "localization" -- that is, requiring goods and services to be (mostly) locally created products.
You'd have a 17th century economy, think Afghanistan under the Taliban. Or N. Korea today, since nobody really trades w/ them anyway.

DSM, do you know of any countries w/ a closed market that is doing well? Why would you wish that on the US?

The red tape required to enforce and police such a situation would be astronomical.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Wolverine
As for your idea about raising the minimum wage, study of rudimentary economics will demonstrate that doing so will not achieve the results you suggested. It may sound good on the surface, but more thorough review of the effects on the market system yield demonstrable, adverse effects on the economy.
For instance, higher labor costs generally cause companies to spend their $$ on capital improvements. More machinery, fewer workers. Dish-washing machines and 3 workers to load/unload it as opposed to 7 dishwashers for example.
The auto industry employs far fewer workers today than it did in 1960, yet produces more cars due to automation. High labor costs made automation a more cost-effective option.

[reprise]

I noticed that nobody has really addressed the issue of reducing debt.

One reason I would like to see nation's like my own have FEWER economic ties with the US is because the US economy can no longer sustain itself - if the US cannot find ever expanding markets for what it produces, it's economy will implode, taking the economies of many other nations with it.

One of our economic analysts here mentioned a frightening statistic the other day - out of all the world's savings, 90% of them are on loan to the US.

Never mind forgiving Third World debt, in order for the US to be able to meet its own liabilities as they fall due it NEEDS the free-trade agreements which it is currently seeking - this places the nations to whom the US owes money in the unenviable position of not signing the FTAs and having the US default because it couldn't expand find more its products, or signing the agreements which keep the US economy viable at the expense of their local industries.

If Australia signs the proposed FTA with the US, I'll be doing everything possible to move to a country which has had enough sense not to align its economic fortunes with the insatiable monster which is the US economy.

[dsm]

Originally posted by WildCat

DSM, do you know of any countries w/ a closed market that is doing well? Why would you wish that on the US?


What's the definition of doing well? As reprise points out, the US is already the biggest debtor nation on earth (thanks, Reagan...). Is the US doing well or is it living on borrowed time?

[reprise]

Depending on which economic model you adopt, the definition of "doing well" will be different.

There is no doubt that Australians own more luxury items than ever before. Unfortunately, satisfying our addiction to cheap luxury items has come at the cost of our being self-sufficient in more essential areas.

I'd happily return to paying substantial duties on imported luxury items if it meant returning to this nation being able to provide a reasonable standard of housing, food, clothing, transport, health care, education and other "basics" for all its citizens. It's insane that even "poor" Australian families own mobile phones, PCs, and DVD players while it's now takes two parents working to buy a home. I'll take the days when a sole breadwinner on an average wage could buy a home and provide a reasonable standard of living for the family but luxury items had to be saved for any day, rather than the "benefits" which economic rationalism and globalisation have brought us.