What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[willie t-blaze]

the best thing to do to help our economy is to create jobs. I support obama when he says to use infastucture to create jobs, that's a good idea. with jobs we can start opening better bank accounts, which the bank uses to get money.

[Osborn F Enready]

The first thing to do to stop increasing the severity of the eventual bottom of this depression is to STOP THE BAILOUTS.

[ironeagle]

You want to know what I really think would make a difference although it will never happen, other than homes which I can't forsee being affordable without loans, and people need homes, there is no reason that we need credit, credit card companies, or loans. We have uses for htem of course and when they are decent loans and people really do have the funds to pay for them their fine, but the simple truth is as a people we just don't have the funds, the loans are outrageous and we over use and abuse credit. Also it unfairly prohibits poorer people form getting jobs, getting bank accounts, or accessing homes, cars, and schooling. What people need to do is realize we can't have it all and what we want we should save for not constantly buy on money we know we don't have. Illegalization of credit would create a new world of responsibility and reduced uneeded luxury.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Derek Wolff What policies could possibly improve our economy?

- financial system
- healthcare and insurance systems
- educational system
Drastic changes in fundaments of these 3 departments would correct a state's functionality. Otherwise, next generations are going to be hurt by much worse economic crisis.

[TheWord]

Quote by: nerdvincent It wouldn't have been impossible to do the same with socialism, only with a few difference. The raise of "efficiency of production" could have been put more direclty to the advantage of the common good. Explanation: The capitalists are the one [directly] taking profit out of efficiency. We could have a global decreasing of working hours for the same amount of money, yet here is what happened instead: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...WideDivide.gif Here is where the increasing of GPD is gone.

I think what your missing here is that the 'efficiency' of production you would put to good use (read: increase in worker's wages / benefits) in inversely related to the profit of the company itself. Essentially, in redistributing the efficiencies of production, you lose the efficiency itself due to rises in the cost of both labor and factors of production.

Also I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that we could decrease the working hours of labor (read decrease in supply of labor) and still maintain stable aggregate price levels. If the supply of a factor of production goes down, the price of the remaining labor will increase. In order to cope with this rise in F.O.P. price, buisnesses will raise prices - creating Cost-Push Inflation which would cripple the international economy and harm workers more than it would help them (read unemployment).

Quote by: nerdvincent What makes the average living standard increase is massive investments in new technologies, which can be done in both systems.

You are correct that massive investment is possible in both systems, I did not dispute that fact. I simply stated that investment has been more efficient under Capitalism than through the pseudo-Socialism of the 1950's. And in having investment become more efficient in terms of technological growth, Capitalism allowed for a more rapid growth in living standards.

Quote by: nerdvincent But here you said something important: American family. What's so special with the American family? The fact that they can buy cheap goods produced in Third World, while earning big wages. Globalisation, not capitalism, contributed the most to the increasing of the living standards in the Western World.

You are correct that there is nothing special about the American family. It is simply where I happen to live. It was a term of convenience more than anything else. But you assertion that Globalization, and not Capitalism, was responsible for the rise in living standards is misleading. Globalization is essentially the expansion of capitalist (read private) corporations across international boundaries. It was the only logical consequence we could have reached when our ability to supply products far outpaced domestic consumption.

Quote by: nerdvincent What did capitalism cause in Africa, Asia and South America? Although mild capitalist exploitation is common inside the US, globalization made it become the norm on a much greater scale everywhere else. If the American living stadards are so high today, that's because they became the "bourgeoisie state" of this world, while Bangladesh and Africa became the "proletarian states". "Class struggle" have meaning only on an international basis today, it is much less present than inside the state. "

Capitalists exploit people only in the sense that they take advantage of undeveloped supplies of labor. In all honesty, we should pay people more, but doing so as I've indicated in my other posts, must be done in conjunction with a sense of pragmatism. Businesses must remain economically profitable otherwise the result is a virtual economy subject to collapse should the upward pressure of inflation cause systemic failures.

Quote by: nerdvincent If the money is only redistributed, not created, and if the money expresses the availability of commodities produced and their equivalence in work, it's only a back-to-basics redefinition of money in which your argument cannot ake place.

The 'money' you are talking about redistributing is still subject to monetary influences by the very nature of its existence. Regardless of who receives the money, when large amounts of currency are transferred, it effects the exchange rate in an upward direction. This in turn creates inflation which stifles growth.

Quote by: nerdvincent Well today workers don't have wage decrease but massive layoff if the compagny is having trouble, so I the Ratchet Effect is a cheap illusion of security. Easily replacable workers are meatshields used to protect "higher worker's" (engineer,...) wage and capitalist's margins: here is your ratchet. Workers are under the risk of speculation and capitalism like "poor little investors" when things are getting hot, yet they are mostly left aside when there is profit.

That is my point. If you prevent businesses from laying off people when profits decrease, the businesses will fail instead because they have become inherently unprofitable.

And I'm sorry for the delay in responses. Work seems to have caught up with me.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon LOLOLOL!!!! How can they socialize a private company when according to you they are all owned by the government? Nobody here is arguing what Chinese government can or cannot do. They are a dictatorship and can do as they please. This doesnt change the fact that while you claim they espouse public ownership of business, in the real worl China has undergone the most massive privitization of business in the last 20 years the world has ever seen.

Was that a serious question? Of course they can socialize the company if they own it, that was the whole point. They say instead of having a 30% share of your company (read majority private ownership / investment), we now have a 100% share in your company. This is the intrinsic definition of modern socialization.

[TheWord]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The first thing to do to stop increasing the severity of the eventual bottom of this depression is to STOP THE BAILOUTS.

Because a much better option for reinvigorating our economy are 35% unemployment rates when these businesses fail...

I don't understand this rallying cry against bailouts. Did you guys miss the Great Depression? I can comprehend your frustration at seeing your money go to someone else, but logic should at least tell you that the alternative is utter economic collapse.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord Was that a serious question? Of course they can socialize the company if they own it, that was the whole point. They say instead of having a 30% share of your company (read majority private ownership / investment), we now have a 100% share in your company. This is the intrinsic definition of modern socialization.

Except the percentages of government ownership have been going down, not up.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: TheWord Because a much better option for reinvigorating our economy are 35% unemployment rates when these businesses fail... I don't understand this rallying cry against bailouts. Did you guys miss the Great Depression? I can comprehend your frustration at seeing your money go to someone else, but logic should at least tell you that the alternative is utter economic collapse.

The problem many people have with the first bailout was that it DIDN'T WORK! We handed these scumbags a pile of loot and essentially told them to do whatever they wanted with it.

And what they wanted to do with it was to pay billions to their executives, buy other banks and sit on the rest. What they DIDN'T want to do with it was what Congress told the people what it was FOR, which was to start lending money again.

The problem I have with the NEW bailout, excuse me, stimulus, is thast by the time it goes through the congressional sausage grinder it TOO will do very little to help.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The problem many people have with the first bailout was that it DIDN'T WORK! We handed these scumbags a pile of loot and essentially told them to do whatever they wanted with it. And what they wanted to do with it was to pay billions to their executives, buy other banks and sit on the rest. What they DIDN'T want to do with it was what Congress told the people what it was FOR, which was to start lending money again. The problem I have with the NEW bailout, excuse me, stimulus, is thast by the time it goes through the congressional sausage grinder it TOO will do very little to help.

I agree completely with your assessment. The problem with the new proposed stimulus package is that it doesn't stimulate new job growth. Half the proposed new money is to shore up the 50 states who are having solvency problems. Not that that is a bad thing since unemployment funds are at the state level. The blunder on the part of President Obama and the Dems is that they shouldn't call this a "Stimulus Bill"....it should be called a Tourniquet Bill or Anti Economic Collapse Bill or even The Treading Water Bill . Because when this "stimulus" doesn't stimulate new job growth it is going to be perceived as a failure. Framing the issue politically is extremely important. When it gets the wrong name at the outset, the entire concept takes on a life its own and the expectations that go with it.

George Bush had this problem with the concept of "The War on Terror" (an impossiblillity to wage war against a tactic) He should have called it "The War on Takfiris"

[Trojan_Ripper]

What policies could possibly improve our economy?

Throw the ponsi scum in jail. Of course this would include our government (past and present) who have taken billions of our tax dollars and bailed out institutions that reward themselves bonuses with it. What are they rewarding themselves for...Failure? Unbelievable…. and all Obama can say is “shameful”. WTF?

I know a lot (or most) of this happened on Bushes watch, but we’ve got to penalize these corps, hit em’ where it counts (their pocket) and throw them in jail for years (like what would happen to you or me) and then maybe it won’t happen again.

How much would this save to stimulate our economy?

Oh, and Maximdewinter, love your thought on how the stimulus bill should be called “The treading Water Bill”. Gotta go make up a T-shirt with that thought….but at least I'm not printing up monopoly money.

[dixon]

Quote by: maximdewinter George Bush had this problem with the concept of "The War on Terror" (an impossiblillity to wage war against a tactic) He should have called it "The War on Takfiris"

Its always been a war against Islamic terrorists. More politically correct to call it war on terrorism and Islam is peace

[ironeagle]

See this is my point about Obama I didn't vote for him because I believed he would use socialistic bills that will put us further and further in debt, if this stimulus fails and taxes don't lower on the middle class I know for a fact we will see riots, for food. As more jobs collapse these irresponisble rich people will continue to get richer and richer as we get poorer and poorer. There won't be any food left in the food pantries to feed needy families and there won't be any funds left to secure the medical care needs of children. Spending money which doesn't exist has made the value of our money decrease substantially and as our rents,loans, utility and food costs soar and our pay remain stagnate more people with be shut off, kicked out and go hungry. On this bill Obama is making a huge mistake.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ironeagle On this bill Obama is making a huge mistake.

I'm not ready to blame it on Obama just yet for this bailout, and the first one was before he was president.

But I AM placing the blame squarely on CONGRESS. They first caused the problem with their love affair with deregulation and compounded it with the bailout. Remember when Paulsen first proposed the bailout plan? He pretty much told Congress to give him $700 Billion dollars and then leave him alone to do whatever he wanted with it, with ZERO oversight or even any involvement.
Of course those thieves came back and told US they would insist on oversight (which is always a mixed blessing with Congress anyway), which they sort of forgot to include in the bill allowing Paulsen and the banks and brokers do whatever they wanted ANYWAY with at least the first half of the money.

And this is the fault, not of the people who GOT the money, as they by nature are greedy bastards and we already knew it, but BOTH the Democrats and Republicans in Congress!
The ONLY thing they know how to do is to throw our money at everything, and though it's the only thing they DO, they can't even get that ONE thing right.

And of course, the REAL fault lies with the idiot sheep in this country who are too damned stupid and/or obsessed with partisan bullshit to know what Congress is doing and only base their votes on the best TV ad they see at election time.
The same damnable, useless, brain dead morons who consistently give the Congress a horribly low approval rating, even lower than George W Bush's on his worst day, yet the drooling idiots keep electing the SAME PEOPLE every time.

[dixon]

The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of "creating" each job to a staggering $460,000+

$200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

$1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"

$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration."

$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars.

$252 billion is for income-transfer payments

$81 billion for Medicaid,

$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,

$20 billion for food stamps,

$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax.

Michelle Malkin » Stimulus stupidity alert: $460,000/Coast Guard job, $1.5 bil “carbon capturing contest,” $400 mil chlamydia/HIV tests, $45 mil for ATV trails & more!

[dixon]

Quote by: Scribbler1 compounded it with the bailout. Remember when Paulsen first proposed the bailout plan? He pretty much told Congress to give him $700 Billion dollars and then leave him alone to do whatever he wanted with it, with ZERO oversight or even any involvement.

At least the first bailout went to purchasing assets, equities and make loans. Could theoretically all be returned to the government. It instantly fixed troubled balance sheets that could of gone bankrupt, Costing the government more to gurantee FDIC accounts. This time its going into a black hole, never to be seen again.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon At least the first bailout went to purchasing assets, equities and make loans. Could theoretically all be returned to the government. It instantly fixed troubled balance sheets that could of gone bankrupt, Costing the government more to gurantee FDIC accounts. This time its going into a black hole, never to be seen again.

The FDIC doesn't have anything to do with mortgages, which was the prime mover in the beginning. A lot of that money went to lenders who either sat on it or used it to buy other banks.

And just how MUCH of the bailout money went to purchasing assets, equities and making loans?

I have a feeling the politicians who are bitching and moaning about how bad this is are only upset because their contributors aren't rewarded enough by this bill, or at least what the bill is SUPPOSED to do.

If the first bill had been used ONLY to buy out the bad mortgages, by handing the lenders a payoff check for each mortgage and working with the homeowners for the payoff, this whole problem may not have gotten this bad.

I'd like to shake the face of the guy who first came up with the idea that handing a ton of money to the same damned people who CAUSED the collapse in the first place would be a good idea.

[dixon]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The FDIC doesn't have anything to do with mortgages, which was the prime mover in the beginning.

If a bank goes bankrupt, the FDIC gurantees the depositiors money, costing the government

Quote by: Scribbler1 A lot of that money went to lenders who either sat on it or used it to buy other banks.

Your point? Their balance sheet is still fived and the government still has assets equities and loans to be paid back

Quote by: Scribbler1 And just how MUCH of the bailout money went to purchasing assets, equities and making loans?

all of it.

Quote by: Scribbler1 If the first bill had been used ONLY to buy out the bad mortgages, by handing the lenders a payoff check for each mortgage and working with the homeowners for the payoff, this whole problem may not have gotten this bad. I'd like to shake the face of the guy who first came up with the idea that handing a ton of money to the same damned people who CAUSED the collapse in the first place would be a good idea.

???? You mean by giving homeowners money so they can stay in houses they cant afford and never should have bought in the first place?

[Diogenes]

Personally I think...and I already know these are going to be very unpopular opinions...that we should should start to consider homes in the same way we view other luxury items...and put a hefty tax on them...

the fact is the population needs ' room ' to grow...and the only way we can grow is up...by making homes priced so only the filthy rich can own them we will open up acres of land for other purposes...and ensure future availability of housing (apartments )...

eventually I see the vast majority of people living in mega-apartment complexes...

outlaw privately-owned autos...let the car manufacturers collapse...and invest the money into motorcycles, bikes, mopeds, etc...and environmentally-friendly commercial vehicles...

bus drivers and taxi-cab drivers are quietly applauding me while everyone else gets out their pitchforks and torches.

" No house, no car??? You must be crazy!!! "

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon If a bank goes bankrupt, the FDIC gurantees the depositiors money, costing the government

They are not all traditional banks that lent this money knowing it was risky.
Until recently, banks which held depositors' money and investment banks were separate entities and these shaky mortgages would hurt these companies even if the depositors (not stockholders) were protected.

Your point? Their balance sheet is still fived and the government still has assets equities and loans to be paid back

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you that these megabanks and brokerage houses will ever pay back these huge sums.

all of it.

Link?

???? You mean by giving homeowners money so they can stay in houses they cant afford and never should have bought in the first place?

It's not a black-and-white issue. A lot of people were essentially swindled and hoodwinked. A reworked mortgage would allow the government to be paid back and people would keep their houses.