What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: barts I believe I discussed--albeit very briefly--the military, schools, and health care in my original post. If the money, as you say is not well spent by government, then perhaps Americans are simply not competent enough to run a country or to elect a good government. Perhaps once the domestic resources have run out, and more jobs have been outsourced, America will simply decline into irrelevance because of this incompetency--the once prosperous American will be no more. If that's the case why bother improving the economy, if all that will do is delay the inevitable. I think you make a good case that America is simply a big "failing business" and there's no point shoveling money into it.

Money breeds complacency, and complacency breeds incompetence. The question posed was what policies could improve our economy, and my position is to have our money better spent instead of making our problem bigger by giving the government more money.

Despite issues with the country (which are the same issues in all Western countries) we still are doing rather well, even if with crumbling bridges and a crappy education program from our soon to be replaced president.

We've certainly been competent enough to run a country for the last couple hundred years, I'm sure we'll hang in there, even if the billions we're shoveling into the economy now don't do anything

[Derach]

Entrepeneurship, a true free market, more competition, a more localized production and managment base and the total privatization of most industries is the way to solve the core issues that plague the US economy. All of this within an actual tangible economy ... not one based on speculation, credit and beauracracy.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Derach Entrepeneurship, a true free market, more competition, a more localized production and managment base and the total privatization of most industries is the way to solve the core issues that plague the US economy. All of this within an actual tangible economy ...

The only thing here I'd agree with is increased localized production. Of course, there is a fear that localized production could totally harm the economy, but this is not completely true. It really depends on how it's done. Obviously not all production would be local, but localization tends to increase accountability when individuals have a greater say in what's done with resources.

The concept of "total privatization" is a terrible one. It's one of the main reasons our economy is failing this very minute. In fact, privatization of resources is the core issue. On top of that, we shouldn't be concerned about "the US economy" per se, because the economy isn't entirely ours. If you want to discuss a truly tangible economy, you have to note the international nature of ongoing -- and presumably future -- trade.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa The concept of "total privatization" is a terrible one. It's one of the main reasons our economy is failing this very minute.

???? "Failing"? Compared to the economies of the world I would say we are thriving. I suspect that it is that compared to the economy you have imagined, we are failing.
One only needs to compare the economic conditions in countries that are closest to "total privatization", and compare them to the economies that are furthest from "total privatization", and see that privatization is a good thing for the economy, the absence of it is very bad.

[Scribbler1]

It could be worse.

I was just reading how Zimbabwe came out with a 100 TRILLION dollar note. It's worth about $300 US.

With that kind of economy you could buy a base model Toyota Corolla for the paltry sum of 15 Trillion bucks.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon ???? "Failing"? Compared to the economies of the world I would say we are thriving. I suspect that it is that compared to the economy you have imagined, we are failing. One only needs to compare the economic conditions in countries that are closest to "total privatization", and compare them to the economies that are furthest from "total privatization", and see that privatization is a good thing for the economy, the absence of it is very bad.

That is an incredibly bold generalization to make. Privatization is beneficial only to those who already own - or in this case, have the immediate potential to own - the means of production in question. Imagine if we privatized the fire department or the police department in every town: one could safely assume that this would not be 'a good thing for the economy' as a whole if we began 'privatizing' our public services - though it would greatly benefit some individuals. As for your question regarding the strength of private versus public ownership - and I acknowledge that on many points this comparison is valid only superficially - China, which espouses public ownership in many of its industries, is growing at ~7%; whereas most industrialized nations (read: private ownership) are now in a technical recessions (-1.9% now for the UK?).

In my opinion, your claim that privatization has a great deal of influence on our economy is misguided. Regardless of who owns a means of production, if consumption and demand fall, it is unlikely that a change in ownership will rejuvenate that decline. The issue with our economy is not private ownership of corporations or services: the issue is that Capitalism is inherently prone to cycles of depression and speculation, which are in turn prolonged and exacerbated by a Central Bank concerned only with inflation. If we choose to embrace Capitalism and neglect the need to regulate it's inflationary tendencies, we need realize that depressions are inevitable and 'buckle down' to ride through them.

[ironeagle]

There is a big difference between the government spending the people's money on luxuries and things whcihc thye have no right to spend it on or bailing out failing companies, and people spending their own money on luxuries. I wouldn't expect the government to bail my business out if I clearly failed because I set prices too, high or didn't advertise or sell properly. I do think though if we keep business here in America and pay fair wages to families, and individuals who work for us, we need no other polocies to get us by on that level, it will level it's self out. Not to say other areas don;t need new policies. You just can't blame all the businesses in America for making money , the people pay millions of doallrs for the luxuries they enjoy, and I don't think companies should feel bad that they make money off of these people's wants. I don't think people are entitled to free makeup and free skincare, I expect customers to pay for them.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon ???? "Failing"? Compared to the economies of the world I would say we are thriving.

Yes, "failing," especially when considering the advantage America has had in terms of natural wealth, and considering the rights workers have won over the years. We should all be living like absolute kings, and would be were it not for privatization of industry. Thanks to the public being hoodwinked over the years, huge portions of our wealth -- and the means of maintaining and possibly creating more wealth for the general population -- are being centralized into the hands of what could objectively be called ruling elites.

So I'd hardly say privatization is only a good thing. Plus, corporations tend to create a very anal retentive and military-like social atmosphere, so many find it harder to enjoy the luxuries they have in this rat-race anyway.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle There is a big difference between the government spending the people's money on luxuries and things whcihc thye have no right to spend it on or bailing out failing companies, and people spending their own money on luxuries. I wouldn't expect the government to bail my business out if I clearly failed because I set prices too, high or didn't advertise or sell properly.

No one would need to be bailed out, provided they are allowed to operate at a loss. If enough businesses are forced out of business, the buying public may as well be stuffing its money down a rathole. It is just good American business, I think, to help a business out the easy way by letting it stay in operation. If a business is ever to be closed down, it should be for some significant danger it poses -- not simply because it's not making the banks enough money. If banks are to exist, their sole purpose should be to assist a community. After all, they are in fact dealing with other people's money. This is just common sense, and I think of it every time I hear of a lay-off or some such event. Capitalism makes life harder than it has to be.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, "failing," especially when considering the advantage America has had in terms of natural wealth, and considering the rights workers have won over the years. We should all be living like absolute kings, and would be were it not for privatization of industry. .

What industry would that be?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: dixon What industry would that be?

About the same industries you see today, but without "capitalist taxation" you call profit, and working in a cohesive way thus permiting greener policies and more efficient production.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt The question posed was what policies could improve our economy, and my position is to have our money better spent ...

I wonder why nobody else came up with such a simple, yet effective, idea? To fix the economy, all the government has to do is spend our money better. Of course, there may be some debate about what better means, but that's just being picky on my part.

[dixon]

Quote by: nerdvincent About the same industries you see today, but without "capitalist taxation" you call profit, and working in a cohesive way thus permiting greener policies and more efficient production.

What bull sheet. We are looking for these industries that were privatized. NAME them.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord - China, which espouses public ownership in many of its industries, is growing at ~7%; whereas most industrialized nations (read: private ownership) are now in a technical recessions (-1.9% now for the UK?). .

Not sure where you get your information on China. I suspect the percentage of publicly owned industry in China has done NOTHING but decline for the last 20 years. Directly supporting my assertions and refuting yours.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon What industry would that be?

I was referring to industry in general, which is in fact shifting overseas -- due precisely to the interests of private capital, which seek locations where they might be able to pay lower wages with less public uproar. Of course, this general strategy backfires whenever there are strikes.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa I was referring to industry in general, which is in fact shifting overseas -- due precisely to the interests of private capital, which seek locations where they might be able to pay lower wages with less public uproar. Of course, this general strategy backfires whenever there are strikes. Grandpa h.

You might want to look up a definition of privitization before you make such silly claims.

[Derach]

Grandpa -

Are you sure you don't mean 'manufacturing' instead of 'industry'?

Industy is a broad brush to stroke and there's lots of industry that will never be outsourced ... like housing ... by definition.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon Not sure where you get your information on China. I suspect the percentage of publicly owned industry in China has done NOTHING but decline for the last 20 years. Directly supporting my assertions and refuting yours.

I'm a little confused by what you wrote. If you mean that the amount of control the Chinese government has invested in any one company has decreased, then you are correct. Though that point is rather irrelevant. I was suggesting that the Chinese Government has now a "minority" or "relative majority" stake in more companies than it has had previously. This to me indicates a general increase in the aggregate public ownership of industries, which is what I originally wrote.

I'm also confused as to why we are still arguing about ownership at all. A change in the ownership of industries will do nothing to improve the economy at all, whether it be socialization or privatization. If anything it has only the potential to make our economy more inefficient due to contractual and practical shortfalls. If you disagree with the premise, you need to read: The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration

I'm not sure if everyone will be able to find it, but the mutilated and condensed version essentially states that a change in ownership of capital between firms (read ownership of industries when extrapolated to a Governmental Scale) will suffer from inefficiencies due to our inability to specify our rights and obligations in contractual terms. These inefficiencies result in an incomplete integration (either in a firm becoming entirely public or private) and lower overall productivity.

As I said earlier, there is little we can do once in a recession to fix it. Consumer confidence, and resulting levels of consumption, are dependent upon long-term stability and incremental growth. If we have a system in which growth is erratic (read speculation "booms" and recession "troughs" ) then depressions are inevitable. Capitalism works, it just needs some degree of modern, effective regulation in order to avoid our current situation.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord I'm a little confused by what you wrote. If you mean that the amount of control the Chinese government has invested in any one company has decreased, then you are correct. Though that point is rather irrelevant. I was suggesting that the Chinese Government has now a "minority" or "relative majority" stake in more companies than it has had previously. This to me indicates a general increase in the aggregate public ownership of industries, which is what I originally wrote.

And you would be wrong.

In 1995, ownership reform was significantly accelerated when the central government decided to retain the ownership of between 500 to 1000 large-scale SOEs and to allow smaller SOEs to be leased or sold (zhuada fangxiao). In 1997, the 500 largest state firms held 37 percent of the state’s industrial assets, contributed 46 percent of all tax revenue from the state sector, and generated 63 percent of the state sector’s profits. By 1998, a national survey showed that one quarter of China’s 87,000 industrial SOEs had restructured and another quarter planned to restructure in some way. Among the restructured firms, 60-70 percent had been partially or fully privatized. By the end of 2001, 86 percent of all SOEs had been restructured and about 70 percent had been partially or fully privatized. The number of SOEs fell from 64,737 in 1998 to 27,477 in 2005. At the same time, industrial output increased . As the public sector shrunk, the private sector expanded. The number of private enterprises increased from 440,000 in 1996 to 1.32 million in 2001, 16.9 percent of all enterprises to 43.7 percent. The public sector’s share of all industrial output dropped from73.4% to only 11.1% between 1983 and 2003. Reform of State-owned enterprises in China

73.4% of China's industrial output in 1983 came from the public sector. By 2003 this was only 11.1%. Your claim that China "espouses public ownership" has no relation to reality.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Derach Grandpa - Are you sure you don't mean 'manufacturing' instead of 'industry'? Industy is a broad brush to stroke and there's lots of industry that will never be outsourced ... like housing ... by definition.

We tend to unconciously use the exemple of the textile manufacture of the mid-1800's to caracterise the whole thing, which is a pretty bad habit which may make us sound a bit outdated. But no, we mean industries, whether you can outsource them or not the point is the same: labour vs capital. You renumerate ownership, we renumerate work.