The Phantom's 14 Easy Steps to Economic Recovery

BluePhantom

Educator (of liberals)
Nov 11, 2011
7,062
1,764
255
Portland, OR / Salem, OR
Here is my simple 14 point plan to get the economy rocking. Contrary to my history of a long, verbose OP with detailed explanations for each point (which I wrote) I will just post the headlines for now (which to me seems very ambiguous). :lol:

1) Repeal Obamacare

2) Reform (not completely eliminate) government regulations on business

3) Reduce the corporate tax to a competitive rate and overhaul the personal tax code.

4) Suspend the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

5) Allow the repatriation of foreign funds on the condition that a significant portion of it is invested in American business.

6) Impose penalties on the imports of foreign nations that refuse to honor our free trade agreements.

7) Offer tax breaks for small businesses that hire and for major companies that build new manufacturing plants in the United States.

8) Allow home and student loan refinancing for those who actually need it combined with banking regulations that prohibit bundling and generally playing roulette with money the banks don't have.

9) Pull the business licenses of companies who hire illegal immigrants.

10) Secure the damn border and deport illegal immigrants.

11) Embark on aggressive drilling and conservation.

12) Invest in supplemental sources of alternate energy (wind, geothermal, tidal, etc), nuclear energy (especially), and ease restrictions on the production of primary and alternate sources of fossil fuels including shale oil.

13) Make members of Congress subject to insider trading laws and strengthen laws against government corruption that include real jail time instead of censures.

14) Make all of the above permanent for a minimum of 7-10 years.

Through these steps we create a friendly business environment that makes it in a company’s best interests to remain in the United States, hire, and expand their operations. It also protects American business from foreign nations who refuse to provide an even playing field and gives incentive for American consumers to buy American goods. It protects the American worker and provides some opportunities for immediate financial relief. It moves towards energy independence by taking steps to have greater control over both supply and demand and opens the door for greater competition between different forms of energy. It addresses questionable banking practices as well as government cronyism and corruption. Lastly it provides certainty for both industry and consumers.

Do all this and the economy will take off like a rocket.
 
Last edited:
1) Repeal Obamacare

Good only if we replace it with a single-payer system. Otherwise, it will just increase health-care costs further.

2) Reform (not completely eliminate) government regulations on business

The only new regulation needed for purely economic reasons is to restore Glass-Steagal and more stringently enforce labor law and the right to organize a union. There may be other regulations needed but for other reasons, not to restore the economy.

3) Reduce the corporate tax to a competitive rate and overhaul the personal tax code.

Reducing the corporate tax will do nothing for or against the economy except to increase the federal deficit.

You need to specify what you mean by "overhaul."

4) Suspend the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Absolutely useless for promoting the economy, but a good way to spark a revolution. What we need to do is not crack down on public sector unions but rather promote private-sector ones. That which pushes wages up benefits the economy.

5) Allow the repatriation of foreign funds on the condition that a significant portion of it is invested in American business.

Repatriation is already allowed. If you mean make that repatriation tax-free, you will encourage outsourcing in the pursuit of tax-free profits.

6) Impose penalties on the imports of foreign nations that refuse to honor our free trade agreements.

This one I agree with.


7) Offer tax breaks for small businesses that hire and for major companies that build new manufacturing plants in the United States.

You and President Obama. This is also a good idea.

8) Allow home and student loan refinancing for those who actually need it combined with banking regulations that prohibit bundling and generally playing roulette with money the banks don't have.

All right, I agree with this, too.

9) Pull the business licenses of companies who hire illegal immigrants.

Another good one.

10) Secure the damn border and deport illegal immigrants.

Not workable, and also not necessary if we are really cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Without jobs waiting for them, people will not be eager to cross the border illegally.

11) Embark on aggressive drilling and conservation.

Drilling will not pay off, if at all, for about a decade after development begins. It makes no sense to do this, when instead we could invest in development of green energy that will supply us permanently instead of briefly.

12) Invest in supplemental sources of alternate energy (wind, geothermal, tidal, etc), nuclear energy (especially), and ease restrictions on the production of primary and alternate sources of fossil fuels including shale oil.

A shotgun approach, eh?

I suggest you check out this link: The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says There is simply no need to resort to either fossil fuels or nuclear power. So why should we?

13) Make members of Congress subject to insider trading laws and strengthen laws against government corruption that include real jail time instead of censures.

Good. Should have been done a long time ago.

14) Make all of the above permanent for a minimum of 7-10 years.

Bad idea. The government needs to have more flexibility than this.

Through these steps we create a friendly business environment

Is a "friendly business environment" one that actually benefits the economy, or is it one that businesses like and are asking for? That these are not necessarily the same thing is seldom recognized by economic conservatives. The skill set of business administration is different from, and in some ways antithetical to, the skill set of economics. Someone running a business is concerned with the success of a PART of the economy in competition with other parts, but economics (or macroeconomics anyway) must concern itself with what benefits ALL of the economy. The two are not necessarily the same, and indeed frequently conflict.
 
1) Repeal Obamacare

Good only if we replace it with a single-payer system. Otherwise, it will just increase health-care costs further.

What we have now is going to increase health costs like crazy and be a massive drag on the economy. Obamacare is a money pit. It's bad for business, it's bad for consumers, it's scaring the hell out of business and making them hesitate to hire. How to fix health care is another matter and I will address that another time. But regardless of what we replace it with, Obamacare has to go.


The only new regulation needed for purely economic reasons is to restore Glass-Steagal and more stringently enforce labor law and the right to organize a union. There may be other regulations needed but for other reasons, not to restore the economy.
Certain elements of Glass-Steagall could be reinstated yes. However, as I have said before in other threads, unionization drives up wages which is good for the worker and protects the worker from unethical businesses, but it also cuts into the ability of the business to realize a profit. I favor unions for worker protection, but all too often their power and influence reaches a point where it inhibits the company's purpose (to realize profit) and then the company will simply pack up and leave. That's not doing the American worker any favors in the long run and it doesn't help the economy as a whole.


Reducing the corporate tax will do nothing for or against the economy except to increase the federal deficit.

Why do you think companies move to foreign nations? It's because they can't reach their profit goals with all the costs associated with producing goods in the United States. Those costs are mostly related to taxes, the cost of labor, regulations which increase the cost of raw materials, and regulations which impact their own cost of production. It simply astonishes me that liberals can't seem to grasp this simple concept.


You need to specify what you mean by "overhaul."

Simplify it. Eliminate loopholes. Anyone who is not outraged that General Electric earned over $14 billion in profits but paid no taxes is either an idiot or a GE stock holder. Should they be taxed at 65% as I have heard some liberals argue? Not unless you really want to see your electricity bill triple. THAT will be great for the economy, huh? But the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Is it any wonder why corporations leave? As far as the personal tax code it needs to be dramatically simplified so people can more easily anticipate their tax burden, recognize government tax manipulation more easily, and be structured in such a way that the middle class (which is really responsible for driving spending) can maximize their spending power.






Repatriation is already allowed. If you mean make that repatriation tax-free, you will encourage outsourcing in the pursuit of tax-free profits.

Repatriation is allowed at a price. I am talking a one-time tax-free repatriation where a portion of that money is reinvested in business.





Not workable, and also not necessary if we are really cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Without jobs waiting for them, people will not be eager to cross the border illegally.

Difficult but not impossible. Additionally, illegal immigrants are a major cause for increased health costs. IMO it's not a question of "can we afford to do it?" as much as "can we afford not to do it?"


Drilling will not pay off, if at all, for about a decade after development begins. It makes no sense to do this, when instead we could invest in development of green energy that will supply us permanently instead of briefly.

Yeah and the more time environmentalists spend blocking it the longer it takes to get it rolling. There's no guarantee that green energy will ever be more cost effective than fossil fuels. I am all for looking into it and promoting it's development in the hopes that it will, but in the meantime we need to cover our collective asses.









Is a "friendly business environment" one that actually benefits the economy, or is it one that businesses like and are asking for?

Both. There are somethings that business wants that will not be beneficial to the economy. I am sure business would love a 0% corporate tax. But that's not in the best interests of the economy as a whole. That's an example of the pendulum swinging too far towards the interests of business. Right now the pendulum is too far the other way and businesses are leaving, shutting down, stagnating, etc. We have to get the pendulum back to a reasonable place where business can thrive but protections for workers, for the environment, etc are still in place to a reasonable degree.
 
Here is my simple 14 point plan to get the economy rocking. Contrary to my history of a long, verbose OP with detailed explanations for each point (which I wrote) I will just post the headlines for now (which to me seems very ambiguous). :lol:

1) Repeal Obamacare

I could live with that.

2) Reform (not completely eliminate) government regulations on business

Which ones?

3) Reduce the corporate tax to a competitive rate and overhaul the personal tax code.

Needs more detail
4) Suspend the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

Being done even as we speak
5) Allow the repatriation of foreign funds on the condition that a significant portion of it is invested in American business.

NOt a clue what that is supposed to mean
6) Impose penalties on the imports of foreign nations that refuse to honor our free trade agreements.

FAIR trade makes sense. FREE TRADE is a disaster

7) Offer tax breaks for small businesses that hire and for major companies that build new manufacturing plants in the United States.

WAsn't that part of Obama's JOBS plan that the GOP absolutely refused to pass?

8) Allow home and student loan refinancing for those who actually need it combined with banking regulations that prohibit bundling and generally playing roulette with money the banks don't have.

You sorta need the BANKING MASTERS to go along with that.

9) Pull the business licenses of companies who hire illegal immigrants.

Better still? Put the CEOs in prison

10) Secure the damn border and deport illegal immigrants.

No problem with that as long as it done sanely

11) Embark on aggressive drilling and conservation.

More drilling has been allowed since Obama took over than was allowed when Bush II was in office, or so I have read.

12) Invest in supplemental sources of alternate energy (wind, geothermal, tidal, etc), nuclear energy (especially), and ease restrictions on the production of primary and alternate sources of fossil fuels including shale oil.

Yeah good idea. Its partically being done right now and the GOPsters are bitching like hell about it. Why? Bets me.


13) Make members of Congress subject to insider trading laws and strengthen laws against government corruption that include real jail time instead of censures.

Yes.

14) Make all of the above permanent for a minimum of 7-10 years.

Actually that we can't do.

Every new Congress decides what it decides and that's just the way it is. OTHERWISE you tied the hands of future Congresses in a way that is unwise.
 
What we have now is going to increase health costs like crazy and be a massive drag on the economy.

No, that's not true. It will save money compared to having done nothing. It will cost money only in comparison to what we should have had instead: a single-payer system, like the rest of the advanced world.

Actually, how to fix health care is so crucial to fixing the economy that if you're not willing to address it then all I can say is that you're not serious. The exploding cost of health care is driving a lot of the problems we have now. It MUST be fixed. I agree that Obamacare will not do a good job of doing that, but merely repealing it and going back to what went before will make things worse, not better.

Certain elements of Glass-Steagall could be reinstated yes. However, as I have said before in other threads, unionization drives up wages which is good for the worker and protects the worker from unethical businesses, but it also cuts into the ability of the business to realize a profit.

Can't have it both ways, and higher wages are not only good for the worker but good for the economy as well. No, higher wages don't cut into the ability of the business to realize a profit. That would only be true if it affected one business but not its competitors. This is a perfect example of what I talked about at the end of my post: the goals of business administration are different from, and also antithetical to, the goals of economics. (This is why business owners make poor political leaders. They habitually think in counterproductive ways.)

Why do you think companies move to foreign nations?

Because they can save 90% or more on their labor costs. Really, there is no other motivation that can compare with this one. Everything else is trivial.

Simplify it. Eliminate loopholes.

A bit more specific than that, please.

As far as the personal tax code it needs to be dramatically simplified so people can more easily anticipate their tax burden, recognize government tax manipulation more easily, and be structured in such a way that the middle class (which is really responsible for driving spending) can maximize their spending power.

I can provisionally agree with this. How would you propose meeting these goals, though?

Repatriation is allowed at a price. I am talking a one-time tax-free repatriation where a portion of that money is reinvested in business.

How would you ensure that it is one-time, especially given the unhealthy and undemocratic influence that big business has over the government?

Difficult but not impossible.

Closing the border to illegal immigrants is impossible, or at least it's impossible if we don't want to completely shut off trade and tourism and spend such a huge amount of money patrolling the border and all possible ways into the country that the whole thing is far more expensive than it's worth. Other approaches to the problem are required.

To start with, we need to honestly recognize that it IS a problem. Today, what we have is an under-the-table scam in which the government sets quotas for legal immigrants low, and then looks the other way as people come here illegally. What this does is provide an exploitable work force for employers with no legal rights, since they face deportation if they try to enforce those rights. See above re unhealthy and undemocratic big-business influence on government.

Yeah and the more time environmentalists spend blocking it the longer it takes to get it rolling.

It's absurd to blame environmentalists for this; it's just an inherent limitation for all development of new oil fields. That's especially true about offshore fields or anything else unconventional, which is all we have left to exploit. Why do you think it took ten years to break the OPEC stranglehold (1973-1983)? Oil companies started development of the North Sea oil field and others immediately on OPEC imposing an embargo in '73, but it took ten years to bring the oil to market.

[qutoe]
There's no guarantee that green energy will ever be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
[/quote]

Yes, there is. Wind and solar are almost there now, and as the price of oil continues to rise -- which it will -- and as wind and solar tech continue to improve -- which they will -- the comparative cost effectiveness will INEVITABLY favor green energy. That is guaranteed.

I am all for looking into it and promoting it's development in the hopes that it will, but in the meantime we need to cover our collective asses.

You speak as if these were experimental technologies. They're not. They're ready now.

Both. There are somethings that business wants that will not be beneficial to the economy. I am sure business would love a 0% corporate tax. But that's not in the best interests of the economy as a whole. That's an example of the pendulum swinging too far towards the interests of business. Right now the pendulum is too far the other way and businesses are leaving, shutting down, stagnating, etc.

That is simply not correct. We have swung, over the past 30 years, toward FAVORING the desires and demands of business, not the other direction. That is mostly why we are in this mess.
 
What we have now is going to increase health costs like crazy and be a massive drag on the economy.

No, that's not true. It will save money compared to having done nothing. It will cost money only in comparison to what we should have had instead: a single-payer system, like the rest of the advanced world.

Actually, how to fix health care is so crucial to fixing the economy that if you're not willing to address it then all I can say is that you're not serious.

It's not that I am not willing to discuss it. It's that it's a complete thread unto itself (which I happen to be preparing as we speak...."The Phantom's 10 Easy Steps to Health Care Reform" coming soon to a message board near you :lol:). For the purposes of this argument I think it's enough to say that we all concede that health care is a major economic factor, it needs to be addressed, and Obamacare is not the solution. BTW with the CLASS Act going out the window any argument that it will save money is completely false...but again...I will address that on a future thread.



Can't have it both ways, and higher wages are not only good for the worker but good for the economy as well. No, higher wages don't cut into the ability of the business to realize a profit. That would only be true if it affected one business but not its competitors.

It DOES affect only certain businesses and not the others. Factories in non-union states do not have to suck up the extra labor costs that unionized factories do. Why do you think Boeing wants to build it's new plant in South Carolina instead of Michigan, Illinois, or simply expand their existing facilities in Seattle? It seems to me that your solution is unionize the entire country. That makes the problem worse. It may stabilize labor costs associated with domestic industry but foreign nations that are not unionized will offer more incentive for reduced labor costs. Relocation of American industry to foreign nations will increase because according to your own argument:

Because they can save 90% or more on their labor costs. Really, there is no other motivation that can compare with this one. Everything else is trivial.

Exactly! The more we unionize the more we price the American worker out of the world market.

A bit more specific than that, please.

I am sure you know what a loophole is, Dragon. :lol: Right now we have: "Ok the corporate tax rate is X%....unless this, that, blah, blah, blah." It's everything that comes after "unless" that allows companies like GE to make profits and escape their tax burden.


I can provisionally agree with this. How would you propose meeting these goals, though?

Well again that's another discussion unto itself. I prefer a variation of the Hall–Rabushka flat tax myself but I am open to suggestions and debate on this one.

How would you ensure that it is one-time, especially given the unhealthy and undemocratic influence that big business has over the government?

Well that's where point 13 comes in.


Closing the border to illegal immigrants is impossible, or at least it's impossible if we don't want to completely shut off trade and tourism and spend such a huge amount of money patrolling the border and all possible ways into the country that the whole thing is far more expensive than it's worth. Other approaches to the problem are required.

Rubbish. I agree you will never get it secure to the point that no person could ever cross it, but you can slow it to one hell of a trickle. You bring up a good point about tourism (I assume you mean those who come "to visit" and then never go home). Yeah that's a method but I think we address that with heavy penalization. I also endorse a method of deportation that liberals find detestable. Don't drop them off on the other side of the border: ship them to the middle of a south american jungle with a map, a compass, and a canteen. Of course some people find that extreme. :lol:

To start with, we need to honestly recognize that it IS a problem. Today, what we have is an under-the-table scam in which the government sets quotas for legal immigrants low, and then looks the other way as people come here illegally. What this does is provide an exploitable work force for employers with no legal rights, since they face deportation if they try to enforce those rights.

Well I will agree with you on this one. American history is full of examples where we need a cheap labor force so we open the doors for immigration and relax enforcement of illegal immigration. Then when we're back in shape we round them up and kick them out. We have done it plenty of times and I think it's to our shame that we have had times in our history that we have viewed immigrant workers as our "slave labor workforce".


It's absurd to blame environmentalists for this; it's just an inherent limitation for all development of new oil fields. That's especially true about offshore fields or anything else unconventional, which is all we have left to exploit.

Come on, man. We've had huge reserves in ANWR for decades that we refuse to touch because we're afraid of hurting the moose. Need we all be reminded of the damned spotted owl?



Yes, there is. Wind and solar are almost there now, and as the price of oil continues to rise -- which it will -- and as wind and solar tech continue to improve -- which they will -- the comparative cost effectiveness will INEVITABLY favor green energy. That is guaranteed.

Yeah the keyword there is "almost". I can point to several things that have "almost happened" for decades. We can reduce the price of oil through increased domestic production, combined with increased reliance on alternative forms we have in place now that are cost effective (such as nuclear), combined with conservation. But you have to do all of it. If, as Democrats argue, we only conserve then OPEC and other oil producing nations to the United States will simply decrease production to ensure that supply stays constant with demand and prices remain high. If, as the Republicans demand, all we do is drill like hell we will just consume more than we do now because we're a nation of consumer pigs. We have to do both.



You speak as if these were experimental technologies. They're not. They're ready now.

Some are and they should be employed at a greater rate. Some are but are not cost-effective. Some simply are not.

That is simply not correct. We have swung, over the past 30 years, toward FAVORING the desires and demands of business, not the other direction. That is mostly why we are in this mess.

In some ways yes. In other ways no. Some regulations have been removed that created major problems. Some have been added that created major problems. We are both tightening and loosening the screws at the same time. The problem is we are loosening screws that need to be tightened and tightening screws that need to be loosened.
 
Do all this and the economy will take off like a rocket.

Great list! You might add to it:

1) make inflation illegal( change Fed mandate) so business can make long term plans easier

2) make governmet debt illegal( Balanced Budget Amendment) so Japan and China will have to buy our goods rather than our debt
 
That is simply not correct. We have swung, over the past 30 years, toward FAVORING the desires and demands of business, not the other direction. That is mostly why we are in this mess.

1) we are in this mess because numerous liberal policies pushed people into homes they could not afford. Why not read "Reckless Endangerment" if you'd like to understand?

2) Business only has only one desire and that is to make a huge profit. Thankfully, under capitalism profit only happens when your customers prefer the price and quality of your product over the price and quality of every other product in the world. Capitalism , in effect, makes business our slaves. If you doubt this, go into business and let us know how well you did
coming up with a good or service that was the best in the world at raising our standard of living.
 
Last edited:
Here is my simple 14 point plan to get the economy rocking. Contrary to my history of a long, verbose OP with detailed explanations for each point (which I wrote) I will just post the headlines for now (which to me seems very ambiguous). :lol:

1) Repeal Obamacare

2) Reform (not completely eliminate) government regulations on business

3) Reduce the corporate tax to a competitive rate and overhaul the personal tax code.

4) Suspend the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

5) Allow the repatriation of foreign funds on the condition that a significant portion of it is invested in American business.

6) Impose penalties on the imports of foreign nations that refuse to honor our free trade agreements.

7) Offer tax breaks for small businesses that hire and for major companies that build new manufacturing plants in the United States.

8) Allow home and student loan refinancing for those who actually need it combined with banking regulations that prohibit bundling and generally playing roulette with money the banks don't have.

9) Pull the business licenses of companies who hire illegal immigrants.

10) Secure the damn border and deport illegal immigrants.

11) Embark on aggressive drilling and conservation.

12) Invest in supplemental sources of alternate energy (wind, geothermal, tidal, etc), nuclear energy (especially), and ease restrictions on the production of primary and alternate sources of fossil fuels including shale oil.

13) Make members of Congress subject to insider trading laws and strengthen laws against government corruption that include real jail time instead of censures.

14) Make all of the above permanent for a minimum of 7-10 years.

Through these steps we create a friendly business environment that makes it in a company’s best interests to remain in the United States, hire, and expand their operations. It also protects American business from foreign nations who refuse to provide an even playing field and gives incentive for American consumers to buy American goods. It protects the American worker and provides some opportunities for immediate financial relief. It moves towards energy independence by taking steps to have greater control over both supply and demand and opens the door for greater competition between different forms of energy. It addresses questionable banking practices as well as government cronyism and corruption. Lastly it provides certainty for both industry and consumers.

Do all this and the economy will take off like a rocket.

wow, you want government to take over everything
 
wow, you want government to take over everything

actually repealing BOcare is not "taking over everything".

Because healthcare for Americans is bad. Like car insurance. That's bad to. In fact, let's get rid of the EPA because clean air and clean water are bad.

Don't Republicans have any ideas about "building things"?

Oh good God. Yeah let me tell you a little secret. The other Republicans on USMB will shun me for letting this tidbit of information out but the reality is that once a month all Republicans gather for a secret group meeting where we discuss our strategy on polluting the air, dirtying the water, destroying the world, and keeping the black man down. First Saturday of every month....take a look around. When you can't find any Republicans, it's because we are all at that secret meeting.

Christ almighty...give it a rest.
 
Do all this and the economy will take off like a rocket.

Great list! You might add to it:

1) make inflation illegal( change Fed mandate) so business can make long term plans easier

2) make governmet debt illegal( Balanced Budget Amendment) so Japan and China will have to buy our goods rather than our debt

I considered both, but I viewed those as things to be done once we're back on track.
 
If you think the solution is easy, then you don't understand the problem.

Here is my simple 14 point plan to get the economy rocking. Contrary to my history of a long, verbose OP with detailed explanations for each point (which I wrote) I will just post the headlines for now (which to me seems very ambiguous). :lol:

1) Repeal Obamacare

2) Reform (not completely eliminate) government regulations on business

3) Reduce the corporate tax to a competitive rate and overhaul the personal tax code.

4) Suspend the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.

5) Allow the repatriation of foreign funds on the condition that a significant portion of it is invested in American business.

6) Impose penalties on the imports of foreign nations that refuse to honor our free trade agreements.

7) Offer tax breaks for small businesses that hire and for major companies that build new manufacturing plants in the United States.

8) Allow home and student loan refinancing for those who actually need it combined with banking regulations that prohibit bundling and generally playing roulette with money the banks don't have.

9) Pull the business licenses of companies who hire illegal immigrants.

10) Secure the damn border and deport illegal immigrants.

11) Embark on aggressive drilling and conservation.

12) Invest in supplemental sources of alternate energy (wind, geothermal, tidal, etc), nuclear energy (especially), and ease restrictions on the production of primary and alternate sources of fossil fuels including shale oil.

13) Make members of Congress subject to insider trading laws and strengthen laws against government corruption that include real jail time instead of censures.

14) Make all of the above permanent for a minimum of 7-10 years.

Through these steps we create a friendly business environment that makes it in a company’s best interests to remain in the United States, hire, and expand their operations. It also protects American business from foreign nations who refuse to provide an even playing field and gives incentive for American consumers to buy American goods. It protects the American worker and provides some opportunities for immediate financial relief. It moves towards energy independence by taking steps to have greater control over both supply and demand and opens the door for greater competition between different forms of energy. It addresses questionable banking practices as well as government cronyism and corruption. Lastly it provides certainty for both industry and consumers.

Do all this and the economy will take off like a rocket.

No it won't.

#s 4 10 and 13 are irrelevant and will have zero effect on the economy.

#6 is already the law

#s 8 and 9 are actually contractionary and will hurt the economy.

#14 is just silly.
 
If you think the solution is easy, then you don't understand the problem.

I used the word "easy" as tongue in cheek.

#s 4 10 and 13 are irrelevant and will have zero effect on the economy.

Well.....on public sector unions:

"The immediate battle will be over benefits, not pay. Here the issue is parity. Holidays are often absurdly generous, but the real issue is pensions. Too many state workers can retire in their mid-50s on close to full pay. America’s states have as much as $5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. Historic liabilities have to be honoured (and properly accounted for, rather than hidden off the government’s balance-sheet)." (1)

"The unions' other cherished benefit is public-employee pensions. In California, for example, state workers often retire at 55 years of age with pensions that exceed what they were paid during most of their working years. In New York City, firefighters and police officers may retire after 20 years of service at half pay — which means that, at a time when life expectancy is nearly 80 years, New York City is paying benefits to 10,000 retired cops who are less than 50 years old. Those benefits quickly add up: In 2006, the annual pension benefit for a new retiree averaged just under $73,000 (and the full amount is exempt from state and local taxes)." (2)

"When all jobs are considered, state and local public-sector workers today earn, on average, $14 more per hour in total compensation (wages and benefits) than their private-sector counterparts. The New York Times has reported that public-sector wages and benefits over the past decade have grown twice as fast as those in the private sector."(2)

The problem, in my mind, with public sector unions is really the pensions. Their pay and benefits are very good of course, but I can live with that to a degree. It's all the people that are not working and drawing massive amounts of money due to their pensions that is a strong contributor to state deficits. Restricting their rights to bargain for such things will not provide immediate impact but it does provide long-term relief and that's just as important.

On securing the border and deportation of illegal immigrants:

As Dragon and I have discussed, health care costs are a huge part of the economy and the impact of illegal immigration on those costs is significant. Education is also incredibly massive.

"Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality. Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments." (3)

"California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens." (3)

"Mike Antonovich, the Los Angeles County supervisor, said the system has been "basically bankrupted." The Department of Health has a $1.2 billion deficit. Caring for illegals is siphoning money from other services and forcing clinics, trauma centers and emergency rooms to close, he said. "We cannot afford to have a open-door policy to encourage illegals to continue to come here and receive all the medical care, because it's too expensive," he said." (4)

"Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants..." (5)

"From 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28% in North Carolina, said a March 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers cited increases in childbirth and prenatal care, as well as injuries and chronic disease complications." (5)

"Statewide, illegal immigrants accounted for one in four new residents from 1990 to 2004, according to a University of North Carolina study. The state ranks ninth in the nation for illegal immigrants with more than 300,000, according to the Pew Hispanic Center." (5)

Please forgive all the cut and paste quotes, but your statement requires documentation that unionization and illegal immigration does indeed affect the economy.

On corruption in government: Are you seriously suggesting that government corruption doesn't have an effect on the economy? Does Chris Dodd ring a bell?

#6 is already the law
#s 8 and 9 are actually contractionary and will hurt the economy.

It may be the law but that doesn't mean it's enforced. In regards to points 8: One of the big problems is that money is stuck. It's not that we have no money. It's that the money is not moving. I am not a huge fan of #8 but people who can't afford their homes and are behind on their payments aren't giving money to the banks right now anyhow. At least the banks will get something instead of nothing and it has the potential to reduce foreclosures which lower surrounding property costs. If we are going to give business a break, we have to give the average guy who is struggling a break too.

On #9....I lived in Arizona for 15 years. After they passed a law to that same effect you would be amazed at how quickly companies got rid of their illegal workforce. Not all of them. Some risked it. But from my experience I saw a lot of movement in that regard.


1) The public sector unions: The battle ahead | The Economist

2) The Trouble with Public Sector Unions > Publications > National Affairs

3) FAIR: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers

4) L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants | Fox News

5) Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants - USATODAY.com
 
Last edited:
I used the word "easy" as tongue in cheek.

Fair enough. I took your words at face value. As I did when you said the economy would take off like a rocket. Most of what you are proposing would have little to no effect in the near term, though they may be beneficial in the long term, i.e. de-unionization of public workers. Cutting pensions for workers would be good for states in 20 years but have no effect over 20 months.

There have been several econometric studies which have concluded that illegal aliens are a net benefit to the economy despite whatever they may cost the social welfare system. Even if you question that, it will raise the cost of doing business as it will raise the cost of labour. Raising costs to business during a recession is a bad idea. The 90s aren't really a relevant analogy because the economy was booming and labour was scarce, the exact opposite of what it is today.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...aw-is-bad-for-business.html?highlight=alabama

And no, cracking down on insider trading in Congress will have zero affect on the economy, even if it is the proper thing to do. I can promise you, no business leader is thinking "Congressmen are benefiting themselves to the tune of $50,000 a year using their position of influence. Therefore, I'm not going to invest $100 million in a plant."
 
Last edited:
Most of what you are proposing would have little to no effect in the near term, though they may be beneficial in the long term, i.e. de-unionization of public workers. Cutting pensions for workers would be good for states in 20 years but have no effect over 20 months.

Sure I will concede that, but we have to employ an approach that addresses both the short-term and the long-term. Simply spending a shit ton of money on union heavy infrastructure projects, as Obama wants, won't do a damn thing. As I am sure you recognize, that would give some people jobs for a limited period of time, but at a huge cost and then what? We're right back where we were with beautiful new bridges and no trucks driving over them combined with even more debt.

I emphasize the point that the problem is not a lack of money. It's that the money is not moving through the economy. Businesses have the money to hire and to expand, so why aren't they? Democrats claim it's a lack of demand. Republicans claim it's a lack of certainty regarding the future business climate. It's both. They create each other. If business stops growing and expanding or even begins retrenching, unemployment increases and the flow of money stagnates. This affects consumer confidence because suddenly people are afraid of losing their job and they start holding onto their money instead of spending it freely. Those who have lost their jobs or been forced to take significant pay cuts are pinched and have no money to spend. The result is what we have now: a vicious cycle where the lack of demand and government policy has created a hostile business climate that gives business no incentive to grow and that in turn creates a consumer attitude where they won't spend the money they have, particularly on luxury goods and leisure activities and that in turn gives business less incentive to grow. So they each create each other.

Las Vegas is a great example of this. Nevada has been one of the hardest hit states in the nation because they get such a major portion of their income from gaming and tourism. I hear people argue that Vegas is struggling for a lack of demand. WRONG! There's just as much demand for what Vegas offers as there ever was. What's missing is the confidence in their future security that people have that will allow them to go blow money on the tables in Vegas.

So industry is hoarding cash, consumers are hoarding cash, and those caught in the middle are losing cash that the other two are hoarding. We have to get the money moving and that means creating a friendly business environment and a sense of certainty for industry, limited financial relief for consumers, and incentives for both to start using their money instead of sitting on it. But at the same time we need to address long-term issues which will indicate to business and consumers that we are addressing long-term growth which will further inspire confidence, AND help avoid ending up right back where we are in a few years time.

I will address your points about immigration and corruption in another post later on today as time allows, because they are important and I am out of time this morning.
 
Last edited:
Sure I will concede that, but we have to employ an approach that addresses both the short-term and the long-term. Simply spending a shit ton of money on union heavy infrastructure projects, as Obama wants, won't do a damn thing. As I am sure you recognize, that would give some people jobs for a limited period of time, but at a huge cost and then what? We're right back where we were with beautiful new bridges and no trucks driving over them combined with even more debt.

Depends what it is. If its a bridge to nowhere, sure. If it is to pave a road we paved five years ago, OK. But ALL infrastructure eventually needs to be replaced. It's no different than a business re-investing in it's plant and equipment to account for depreciation. So we should be spending more on infrastructure when the economy is weak, then cut it back when the economy is strong.

I emphasize the point that the problem is not a lack of money. It's that the money is not moving through the economy. Businesses have the money to hire and to expand, so why aren't they? Democrats claim it's a lack of demand. Republicans claim it's a lack of certainty regarding the future business climate. It's both. They create each other. If business stops growing and expanding or even begins retrenching, unemployment increases and the flow of money stagnates. This affects consumer confidence because suddenly people are afraid of losing their job and they start holding onto their money instead of spending it freely. Those who have lost their jobs or been forced to take significant pay cuts are pinched and have no money to spend. The result is what we have now: a vicious cycle where the lack of demand and government policy has created a hostile business climate that gives business no incentive to grow and that in turn creates a consumer attitude where they won't spend the money they have, particularly on luxury goods and leisure activities and that in turn gives business less incentive to grow. So they each create each other.

The underlying problem is that we have too many homes and too much debt. We created an asset bubble which collapsed. This is a "balance sheet recession," unlike the typical recessions in the last century from WWII onward. (The recession in 2001 was a balance sheet recession as well with the collapse of the Tech Bubble.)

People mistake the existence of excess cash on corporate America's balance sheet as symptomatic of the lack of demand or confidence or whatever. This isn't true. A balance sheet recession by its nature is highly deflationary. When asset prices collapse, either the stock of debt will collapse or government steps in to absorb that debt to avoid a depression. IOW, the balance sheet of the private sector is transferred to the public sector. Debt for the government balloons and the balance sheets of corporations and individuals expands. This MUST happen if the stock of debt is unchanged, i.e. absorbed by the government. So savings shoot way up for individuals and businesses while the government runs massive deficits. It happened in Japan and it is now happening here.

This condition cannot right itself until the excesses of the last bubble are cleared away. When the excess stock of housing disappears, the forces weighing on the economy will also disappear. That's why the policy prescriptions from both parties basically don't work. The problem isn't that people lack confidence. The problem is that there simply are too many excesses in the economy that have to be worked out. It wouldn't matter if everyone in America was super-confident about everything.

The Democrats are partly right in that government spending must replace the collapse in private spending to avoid a depression but the multiplier effect is low to nonexistent because all that's happening is government demand has replaced private demand. Once government demand disappears, so does private demand. Thus, the Keynesian prescriptions don't really work because it doesn't rid the economy of excess supply.

The Republicans are partly right in that new government programs to counteract the recession have no long-term affect and that markets have to be allowed to clear away the excess supply. But they are incorrect in that tax cuts and de-regulation are a magical panacea. Too many Republicans think this is 1981 again when they couldn't be more wrong. So the supply-side prescriptions are the wrong as well because the problem is that we have excess supply.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top