15 replies to this topic

[Joshua]

This is my new list of ideas for fixing the economy. I am contacting elected officials with it.

Housing:
1. No extending term limits during refinancing. A 30 year-loan should stay 30 years, and if 15 years have been paid off, it shouldn’t be bumped back up to 30 years.
2. Bailout conditions should be imposed, both on those to be bailed out, and who have been bailed out – particularly on banks. Think about it – how do you get to the root of predatory lending? By checking what the top dogs can profit from it. If we set as a bailout condition that companies can’t pay their CEOs more than 300 times the salaries of their average workers, how much incentive would those same CEOs have to cheat honest homeowners out of their cash? Nor will this hinder small businesses, for their CEOs aren’t making enough to be impacted by this.

Free Trade:
1. Eliminate free trade agreements.
2. Institute a tariff to tax imports by 90% of the difference in national minimum wages (assuming the other country’s minimum wage is lower). So since Mexico’s minimum wage is $3.50 (but in pesos) while ours is $6.50 their imports would be taxed $2.70. No, this is not protectionism. It is simply leveling the playing field in one area – worker wages. There are many reasons for this. First of all, if we do not, the countries who care little about their workers will profit – and are profiting. China, North Korea, etc. Those countries with low minimum wages and few human rights protections are benefiting via much better trade balances because they attract corporations interested in cheap labor costs. And, thanks to free trade agreements, they can just ship goods around for little expense. Leveling the labor costs like this can be explained to other countries. We are only taxing by 90% to allow them that 10% for transportation costs. Our intent is not to prevent trade, but to ensure the better protection of workers and ability of American companies to compete. Nor will we anger our closest allies – the few countries in the world with higher minimum wages than ours tend to be Western countries – and most of them European. Right now, who is profiting from these low minimum wages? The workers in China who get paid $1 an hour? No, the vast bulk of profits are going to the corporations. Not only will such a law protect American jobs, allowing American companies to better compete with their foreign counterparts, but it will provide incentive for countries and companies worldwide to pay and treat their workers better.

Iraq:
1. Withdraw troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Parlay with the United Nations, both to make reparations for our rudeness in excluding them from events in the Middle East, but also to invite them to help in the governing of Iraq and Afghanistan should they ever again be willing.
2. Employ troops with service time left on home soil, and provide government employment opportunities to the rest of the soldiers, as well as programs helping them reintegrate back into society (poss. work programs, support groups, etc.). Due to our weakened economy, returning troops with no jobs will be a further stress on the economy – which is why we can’t afford to provide them no employment opportunities upon return. We could employ some as border protectors, and others as a kind of additional police force, or create the kind of public improvement work force that Franklin D. Roosevelt used during the Great Depression. At any rate, it will be much more cost effective to employ troops within our own borders, rather than outside them. The days are gone when a war could stimulate the economy. Such happened during WWII because the whole economy had to be involved in the war effort – men working on huge assembly lines, women sewing uniforms, etc. Now, all that is sourced out to a few corporations whose efficient machines do it all. The military is a huge part of our national budget. A single fighter jet can cost over $1 billion to manufacture. Our deficit after going into Afghanistan ballooned from $3 trillion to now over $10 trillion. It will cost less to quarter troops on home soil. We will not have to worry about transportation costs. War equipment (tanks, planes, guns) costs will be cut. Casualties will of course decrease. And furthermore, the money we are paying soldiers, as well as the money they’ve already been paid for all their service time, will now be back within the country to be spent on our own economy – rather than overseas.

[Hakkera]

That's not a plan for fixing the economy as a whole. That's a plan for fixing the American economy. Still, an interesting post and one I'll pass opinion on.

I can't comment on the housing issue with the US, as ours is different, and you may just have the right idea on that one.

However, setting a tariff on all foriegn goods is blatant protectionism. Why? you said it yourself, you are 'levelling the playing field'. In other words protecting your countries' workers from other, cheaper sources of labour. Maybe the workers in your contry should accept lower wages due to the recession which will in turn 'level the playing field', just in the opposite direction.

Yes, the LEDC countries have cheaper labour costs, accept it. They have a comparative advantage over you in labour. I'm sure the US has a comparative advantage of china in some things, it's just the way it works; we are not all the same.

Also as the prices of goods around the world increase - they will due to the high tariff implaced by yourselves and the theory that they will 'pay their workers more' Then the global economy would begin to break down with next to no trade.

Other countries would impose tariffs on the US so instead of selling to a global market, US producers will only be selling to a domestic market. This will continue around the globe. How far will it go? Will China get annoyed at this, your damn right it will, in 10 years time will China begin building up military forces unless the situation is averted. Most likely. World War III anyone?

As for your take on the 'War on Terror' Pulling soldiers out is a good idea. That war should never have been fought in the first place and I have always maintained that. from an economic point of view, unless the US is getting substantially reduced oil rates - a possibilty- the the war is completely not viable. You are spending billions on something that you are getting no economic gain from at all. Not one cent.

The next issue is what to do with your troops when they come back. As you have said if they were left unemployed then it would not be a good thing, they would probably end up sponging off the state or whatever. The only solution to that I could think of is another Kaynesian approach (John Maynard Kaynes was a key advisor to Roosevelt) which is to greatly increase public spending on projects such as schools, dams, and other labour intensive heavy engineering.

The only problem with this is funding the projects. Where does the money usually come from? Government Bonds and loans. Then the banks get involved again. That could be damned messy.

[harrison858]

I agree with the first post for fixing the American Economy, although we need to also include the rest of the world too. But, maybe if we do fix the American economy, other countries' economies may start to go up too. You never know. There are some things that economists were right about and wrong about, there's no way to predict what will happen next, so I say wait.

[networker]

I'd say free trade has definitly hurt Canada.It's taken away
a lot of the base industries such as manufacturing and warehousing.
If they aren't here,a lot of the residual gains are lost too.
They've all gone down south somewhere.
In many ways the Canadian government has forgotten about the people who
actually live here.

Great country Canada but the government sucks.

Sometimes I think I should go back to England.

[Ash-Bash]

I wound agree with fixing America first seeing as they are the home of the banks, I would then suggest too fix the UK as they over rule in the stock markets, A then fix any other countries.

[flashy]

Ive got a better idea

EVERYBODY in england, buy 50 items from poundland - thats enough to feed an extra 3 billion pounds. (£3,047,195,600).

Or an even better idea - why dont bill gates donate several billion? I reckon each of the top 100 most richest people on the planet should place foward a donation of a billion pounds (or in their currency), its a tiny portion of their pocket, and yet they dont donate anything to the world.
Apart from bill cause he donates alot to charity.

[Ash-Bash]

flashy a good idea but kinda sucky.

But some People can't afford things from Poundland XD.

[Joshua]

Hakkera, on Feb 2 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

That's not a plan for fixing the economy as a whole. That's a plan for fixing the American economy. Still, an interesting post and one I'll pass opinion on.

I can't comment on the housing issue with the US, as ours is different, and you may just have the right idea on that one.

However, setting a tariff on all foriegn goods is blatant protectionism. Why? you said it yourself, you are 'levelling the playing field'. In other words protecting your countries' workers from other, cheaper sources of labour. Maybe the workers in your contry should accept lower wages due to the recession which will in turn 'level the playing field', just in the opposite direction.

Yes, the LEDC countries have cheaper labour costs, accept it. They have a comparative advantage over you in labour. I'm sure the US has a comparative advantage of china in some things, it's just the way it works; we are not all the same.

Also as the prices of goods around the world increase - they will due to the high tariff implaced by yourselves and the theory that they will 'pay their workers more' Then the global economy would begin to break down with next to no trade.

Other countries would impose tariffs on the US so instead of selling to a global market, US producers will only be selling to a domestic market. This will continue around the globe. How far will it go? Will China get annoyed at this, your damn right it will, in 10 years time will China begin building up military forces unless the situation is averted. Most likely. World War III anyone?

Fair enough, and all valid criticisms, but ones I've already thought about - in depth. However, if it is protectionism, who is it protecting? Not just America - but workers worldwide. You see, many of the countries who are trade partners with the U.S. and have drastically lower minimum wages are not European at all - China, Venezuela, the Koreas, Saudi Arabia... In short, countries known for human rights abuses feel few qualms about providing lower minimum wages, since it then attracts more corporations interested in cheap labor, more business.

Who does free trade help? The poor workers in China getting 50 cents an hour? What results is lower wages worldwide, so that communist dictatorships who don't protect their people with decent minimum wages are empowered, and the profits go increasingly to companies - not workers. America can defend this policy by pointing out that leaves off 10% of the difference to cover transportation costs between countries, and that those countries with low or no minimum wages ought to be protecting their people better ANYWAY.

Who will America anger with such a policy? Its allies? Unlikely. Those few countries with higher minimum wages than America are almost exclusively European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minim...ages_by_country

It is the countries who already dislike America, such as China, Russia, and Venezuela who will dislike this move. Those with whom America has the closest ties are almost overwhelmingly the ones with equivalent minimum wages. And it is those countries, China in particular, who have been most benefiting from disproportionate trade balances with the U.S.A. China is one of the two neck-and-neck trade partners with the U.S., Canada being the other, and is the one taking away manufacturing jobs from both the U.S. and Canada - as another poster just pointed out.

This bill could create incentive for other countries to follow America's lead, so that China and other communist countries will treat their workers better, provide minimum wages, and thus their workers will not keep getting paid slave wages.

Again, I think China, Russia, and North Korea will be the ones angered by this, whereas European countries if anything, will likely follow suit with their own similar tariffs. It might eliminate trade with those communist countries, but hardly disrupt worldwide trade. And I think it could be argued that China and North Korea are ALREADY dangerous, and ALREADY dislike America.

Hakkera, on Feb 2 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

As for your take on the 'War on Terror' Pulling soldiers out is a good idea. That war should never have been fought in the first place and I have always maintained that. from an economic point of view, unless the US is getting substantially reduced oil rates - a possibilty- the the war is completely not viable. You are spending billions on something that you are getting no economic gain from at all. Not one cent.

The next issue is what to do with your troops when they come back. As you have said if they were left unemployed then it would not be a good thing, they would probably end up sponging off the state or whatever. The only solution to that I could think of is another Kaynesian approach (John Maynard Kaynes was a key advisor to Roosevelt) which is to greatly increase public spending on projects such as schools, dams, and other labour intensive heavy engineering.

The only problem with this is funding the projects. Where does the money usually come from? Government Bonds and loans. Then the banks get involved again. That could be damned messy.

Agreed. Many of the soldiers would likely have to be involved in a massive public works program. I'd imagine some could be used as support for the national guard, or even police/border reserves.

However, it won't be as difficult to fund as you'd think. You see, we're ALREADY spending 600 billion for the military, and only 130 billion of that is on the actual soldiers. The rest goes to procurement of military services, building equipment, etc. We're ALREADY paying them, we'd just be paying them now to be inside our country, instead of out of iit, and to actually work on our own economy - rather than economies overseas.

http://www.gpoaccess...t/fy09/fct.html

Actually exiting those countries will mean we spend less, since we don't have to buy the military equipment anymore (and what we have built can be stocked away), don't have to transport soldiers and goods around the world, don't have to quarter soldiers in foreign countries, etc. Plus, the money the soldiers earn and have been earning for their time in those middle eastern countries can now be put into our economy! And, since they'd stay employed, and thus not a drain on the work force, that could prove a huge, and vital, boost to our economy.

In short, we'd be paying them what we're paying them already, but to stay in our country and use the money they've already been paid to help get our economy back on track! And as much as the public works stuff might cost, it would most certainly still be cheaper than the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on military non-payroll stuff. In fact, that glut of homes on the market which is driving down home prices? Some of the returning soldiers might even buy some of those homes and help fix that problem...

Edited by Joshua, 06 February 2009 - 07:59 AM.

[Veradesigns]

sorry for my English but *bleep Bush shouldn't of took troops to Iraq in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Joshua]

Veradesigns, on Feb 6 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

sorry for my English but *bleep Bush shouldn't of took troops to Iraq in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

And as one of those who voted against him in 2004, how much do you think we, the American people, could do about it? There were mass protests in the U.S. against the war.

http://www.serve.com...35daybyday.html