The Phantom's 14 Easy Steps to Economic Recovery

Discussion in 'Economy' started by BluePhantom, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    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: Nov 28, 2011
  2. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Good only if we replace it with a single-payer system. Otherwise, it will just increase health-care costs further.

    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.

    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."

    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.

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

    This one I agree with.


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

    All right, I agree with this, too.

    Another good one.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    Good. Should have been done a long time ago.

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

    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.
     
  3. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    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.


    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.


    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.


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





    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?"


    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.









    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.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I could live with that.

    Which ones?

    Needs more detail
    Being done even as we speak
    NOt a clue what that is supposed to mean
    FAIR trade makes sense. FREE TRADE is a disaster

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

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

    Better still? Put the CEOs in prison

    No problem with that as long as it done sanely

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

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


    Yes.

    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.
     
  5. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    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.

    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.)

    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.

    A bit more specific than that, please.

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

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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.
     
  6. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    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.



    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:

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

    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.


    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.

    Well that's where point 13 comes in.


    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:

    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".


    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?



    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.



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

    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.
     
  7. EdwardBaiamonte
    Online

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    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
     
  8. EdwardBaiamonte
    Online

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    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: Nov 28, 2011
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Actually it’s The Phantom’s naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary steps back to 1789; that or Fantasy Island.
     
  10. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,164
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,012
    wow, you want government to take over everything
     

Share This Page