What would you do to fix it?

[Baruch Menachem]

Someone else posted this thread a while ago. It died lonely and forgotten, but I thought I would try and resuscitate it.

A few ground rules, just to make life more fun. If you want to do Neener neener, it is X's fault, do so on the thread for that purpose, or make a new one one for that purpose. It is already at 7 pages. But that kind of thing bores me.

Just give a list of ideas that you think would bring back the economy and why it would work. If you have issues with someone idea, create a thread for that discussion, but post your own ideas here only.


For me, I would like to see the Min wage rescinded back to 2007 levels. Unemployed is not better than working for peanuts.

2 a real tax cut for everyone getting wages less than 100,000. Not the small joker that 0bama gave, but something more real.

Fannie Mae and Freddie go back to the old standards for basic loan packages. However, they can also create 'sub prime' packages and sell them either as 10% sub prime in a regular package or as just plain high risk high return portfolios. Either way, the derivative buyers would know what they were getting, rather than loads of junk disguised as quality loans. If the derivative buyers know they are getting better quality stuff, they might be more willing to buy.

the government has no business running private business in competition with other businesses. All the stock the government has accumulated over the past year should be put into a mutual fund, which should be sold off.

All the bad loans the government has bought should be packaged and sold as high risk securities.

Any other good or bad ideas?

 

[jillian]

Interesting. I think diminishing the working class by reducing their wages is probably the worst possible thing to do in a recession. You need people's actual purchasing power to increase, not diminish.

tax cuts have already proven to be a failure as a means of jumpstarting the economy. In fact, reducing taxes for the top 1% of wageearners during time of war was probably the single greatest cause of our economic troubles. Bush was the first leader in history EVER to cut taxes while paying for wars.

As for banking... a return to greater controls so they don't have any further incentive to gamble with our money.

Consideration of laws to reduce the lawful size of corporations so nothing is ever again "too big to fail". FWIW, this goes against my grain, b/c I think if a company succeeds legitimately, that's great. On the other hand, why should we be in a position to have to save a company because the effects on us as a community would be too devestating if it comes crumbling down.

What would I do? I'd probably put a lot more money into infra-structure. Put a lot of money into the "shovel-ready" projects that everyone keeps talking about and fix our subways, water systems, etc... all of the things that are starting to deteriorate. That would enhance middle class jobs and strengthen the middle class... which is what is needed to drag the economy upward... not further investment into the failed politics of voodoo economics.

 

[Terry]

I would stop all federal spending except for defense, a bit fed income tax cut for starters. Congress can work for free for two years if they want to keep their jobs!

 

[jillian]

in other words, you'd destroy the country. good that you gave it all so much thought.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Interesting. I think diminishing the working class by reducing their wages is probably the worst possible thing to do in a recession. You need people's actual purchasing power to increase, not diminish.

tax cuts have already proven to be a failure as a means of jumpstarting the economy. In fact, reducing taxes for the top 1% of wageearners during time of war was probably the single greatest cause of our economic troubles. Bush was the first leader in history EVER to cut taxes while paying for wars.

As for banking... a return to greater controls so they don't have any further incentive to gamble with our money.

Consideration of laws to reduce the lawful size of corporations so nothing is ever again "too big to fail". FWIW, this goes against my grain, b/c I think if a company succeeds legitimately, that's great. On the other hand, why should we be in a position to have to save a company because the effects on us as a community would be too devestating if it comes crumbling down.

What would I do? I'd probably put a lot more money into infra-structure. Put a lot of money into the "shovel-ready" projects that everyone keeps talking about and fix our subways, water systems, etc... all of the things that are starting to deteriorate. That would enhance middle class jobs and strengthen the middle class... which is what is needed to drag the economy upward... not further investment into the failed politics of voodoo economics.

Wages and prices need to come down in a recession.

Tax cuts are far from a failure because it is in the private sector that wealth is created, and letting them keep more of their money will create more real wealth.

 

[jillian]

Wages and prices need to come down in a recession.

Tax cuts are far from a failure because it is in the private sector that wealth is created, and letting them keep more of their money will create more real wealth.

I guess that's the case if you believe Ayn Rand should be considered anything but a novelist.

Luckily, I don't.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Actually, as much as it bugs me as interference in the markets etc. I really think we need some sort of to big to fail measure, and no company should get bigger than that. I used to work for what is now one of the biggest banks, we merged last year and became a national when one of the too big to fails, failed.

There should never again be a corporation too big to fail. the whole point of the market system is that failure be punished. Even if Mega Corp does go under, we therefore need a mechanism for dealing with the corpse of To-Big-to Fail inc so we get the market place protection but not the huge social damages resulting from that kind of collapse.

GM and AGI are prime examples of something we need to be prepared for in the future. If a company needs to fail, we need to make a way for graceful failure. I have no clue as to how to make that work, but To Big To Fail can't continue. Also, I think we need to make a limit of no more than 9% market share for any bank. Banks that get to big need to be split into sections. This has got to be thought through better, but say a bank grows up beyond 9%, we can give the stockholders a bonus for having a great bank as we split the thing in two. We need to reward success, but we can't expose ourselves to catastrophe either.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd abolish the federal income tax and the IRS, I'd end the Federal Reserve and make it illegal for anyone to artificially tamper with the interest rates, I'd end our interventionist foreign policy and bring all the troops from around the world home, I'd allow failing businesses to fail regardless of how "big" they are, and I'd get the government completely out of the market.

 

[jillian]

Actually, as much as it bugs me as interference in the markets etc. I really think we need some sort of to big to fail measure, and no company should get bigger than that. I used to work for what is now one of the biggest banks, we merged last year and became a national when one of the too big to fails, failed.

There should never again be a corporation too big to fail. the whole point of the market system is that failure be punished. Even if Mega Corp does go under, we therefore need a mechanism for dealing with the corpse of To-Big-to Fail inc so we get the market place protection but not the huge social damages resulting from that kind of collapse.

GM and AGI are prime examples of something we need to be prepared for in the future. If a company needs to fail, we need to make a way for graceful failure. I have no clue as to how to make that work, but To Big To Fail can't continue. Also, I think we need to make a limit of no more than 9% market share for any bank. Banks that get to big need to be split into sections. This has got to be thought through better, but say a bank grows up beyond 9%, we can give the stockholders a bonus for having a great bank as we split the thing in two. We need to reward success, but we can't expose ourselves to catastrophe either.

Can't disagree with anything you've said. When I gave thought to the auto makers failing, there were a few things that I saw as making their failure impossible. The first was the loss of 2.5 million jobs which represented both the car-makers and the companies that relied on them for their own existence. The second was the danger to us as a nation if we didn't have manufacturers who could do our military work. The final one was what does it say about us as a nation if we have no manufacturing to employ and build the middle class. I saw a banana republic as the result.

I have no problems with businesses going out of business if they have to. I only have a problem with them taking us with them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wages and prices need to come down in a recession.

Tax cuts are far from a failure because it is in the private sector that wealth is created, and letting them keep more of their money will create more real wealth.

I guess that's the case if you believe Ayn Rand should be considered anything but a novelist.

Luckily, I don't.

Did you want to address the points I made?

 

[AllieBaba]

in other words, you'd destroy the country. good that you gave it all so much thought.

So much for it not being a "neener neener" thread. Jillian has re-joined the fray.

Absent her mod status, she is free to be as obnoxious as she likes.

 

[Oddball]

I'd abolish the federal income tax and the IRS, I'd end the Federal Reserve and make it illegal for anyone to artificially tamper with the interest rates, I'd end our interventionist foreign policy and bring all the troops from around the world home, I'd allow failing businesses to fail regardless of how "big" they are, and I'd get the government completely out of the market.

...and repeal the 17th Amendment, so state once again legislatures have a say in federal budgets.

Then repeal the 14th Amendment, thereby rendering the Santa Clara v. Union Pacific decision impotent.

 

[jillian]

in other words, you'd destroy the country. good that you gave it all so much thought.

So much for it not being a "neener neener" thread. Jillian has re-joined the fray.

so much for this remaining an intelligent thread ... allie's here.

 

[Terry]

All I have to say is I think I've moved far to the right these days. I bet I'm not alone either.

 

[jillian]

Wages and prices need to come down in a recession.

Tax cuts are far from a failure because it is in the private sector that wealth is created, and letting them keep more of their money will create more real wealth.

I guess that's the case if you believe Ayn Rand should be considered anything but a novelist.

Luckily, I don't.

Did you want to address the points I made?

I already said that the worst possible thing to happen in a recession is for the middle class not to have money to spend. I find the people who say otherwise aren't particularly realistic about what should happen to us as a society if their machiavellian economic policies were taken to their extreme.

i also said that tax cuts have been PROVEN to be a failure already. You claimed otherwise. Yet where we are now is a direct result of that type of policy. daddy bush was correct way back when in calling it "voodoo economics".

so why would i waste more words?

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess that's the case if you believe Ayn Rand should be considered anything but a novelist.

Luckily, I don't.

Did you want to address the points I made?

not really. i already said that the worst possible thing to happen in a recession is for the middle class not to have money to spend.

i also said that tax cuts have been PROVEN to be a failure already. You claimed otherwise. Yet where we are now is a direct result of that type of policy.

so why would i waste more words?

Er...if you want the middle class to have money to spend how does raising their taxes help you towards that goal?

Wall Street Journal dude was on the news this morning saying raising the federal min wage was the stupidest thing you could do during a recession.

Also said the best way to fix it would be to give the stimulus money directly to the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess that's the case if you believe Ayn Rand should be considered anything but a novelist.

Luckily, I don't.

Did you want to address the points I made?

I already said that the worst possible thing to happen in a recession is for the middle class not to have money to spend. I find the people who say otherwise aren't particularly realistic about what should happen to us as a society if their machiavellian economic policies were taken to their extreme.

i also said that tax cuts have been PROVEN to be a failure already. You claimed otherwise. Yet where we are now is a direct result of that type of policy. daddy bush was correct way back when in calling it "voodoo economics".

so why would i waste more words?

As long as we allow prices to come down then wages going down, as they must in a recession, then there is no problem. It's when the government gets involved and tries to prop up both prices and wages that we have a problem.

Tax cuts are not a failure, but you have to cut spending as well. That's where Bush failed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did you want to address the points I made?

not really. i already said that the worst possible thing to happen in a recession is for the middle class not to have money to spend.

i also said that tax cuts have been PROVEN to be a failure already. You claimed otherwise. Yet where we are now is a direct result of that type of policy.

so why would i waste more words?

Er...if you want the middle class to have money to spend how does raising their taxes help you towards that goal?

Wall Street Journal dude was on the news this morning saying raising the federal min wage was the stupidest thing you could do during a recession.

Also said the best way to fix it would be to give the stimulus money directly to the people.

Raising the minimum wage is certainly the wrong thing to do, especially during a recession. The higher the minimum wage the more unemployment there's going to be.

I don't agree with giving the stimulus money to the people, however. Don't pass a stimulus at all and simply allow the people to keep the money that they earned makes far more sense.

 

[Terry]

You see Obama wants to kill jobs, he wants to break people to where they will only rely on the Feds to help them out. I see no other explanation as to why our congress and President are doing all these things when you add in the Czars and other shit. And all the while wearing a mask of trying to fix the economy so his sleep will fall step in line.

 

[jillian]

okie dokie...