Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I gladly will, I just traded in two Korean cars for two Union Built Fords. It cost me a little extra but it's what I thought wass right for the country. I have never set foot in a WALMART and sometimes have to drive 60 miles to buy what I need rather than betray America. The easy way isn't always the right way
Unfortunately, American's love the easy way. They love it so much that they would sell your entire country out, as well as any opportunity for their children, just to get another 20% off on an item that will break after a few months of gentle use. They love it so much they would even indirectly sabotage their own well being and potential income/job security to get that hot new trinket that will break their heart when it breaks and they have to buy a new one. Remember, money going overseas ain't coming back, cause no one want's to buy anything from a nation that doesn't produce anything of actual use (except debt of course).
Big surprise, when that item breaks though, they will go ahead and buy the very same one all over again. While this cycle continues, we moronically ask why there is a big giant patch of floating garbage in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas... Wonder how much of that is cheap, easily breakable Chinese crap? Does that allow them rights to claim this giant patch of trash as their own? Maybe as poetic justice, when they finally invade our neutered country (since they obtained all our means of production), they can exile all U.S. citizens to that floating island of trash....
Unfortunately, American's love the easy way. They love it so much that they would sell your entire country out, as well as any opportunity for their children, just to get another 20% off on an item that will break after a few months of gentle use. They love it so much they would even indirectly sabotage their own well being and potential income/job security to get that hot new trinket that will break their heart when it breaks and they have to buy a new one. Remember, money going overseas ain't coming back, cause no one want's to buy anything from a nation that doesn't produce anything of actual use (except debt of course).
Big surprise, when that item breaks though, they will go ahead and buy the very same one all over again. While this cycle continues, we moronically ask why there is a big giant patch of floating garbage in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas... Wonder how much of that is cheap, easily breakable Chinese crap? Does that allow them rights to claim this giant patch of trash as their own? Maybe as poetic justice, when they finally invade our neutered country (since they obtained all our means of production), they can exile all U.S. citizens to that floating island of trash....
Exactly, hit the nail on the head.
It just pisses me off to read all the liberal Keynesian economics about how we need to stimulate US consumer spending. This is sold as the solution to solve the unemployment issue. Meanwhile, they COMPLETELY ignore that we have a MASSIVE trade deficit as a result of buying oil, Chinese garbage, and cars.
Hell, just close the trade deficit and that's an instant 600-700$ billion stimulus directly to the economy. Better yet, let's get back to the days of having a trade surplus. Let's make stuff in the USA and sell it abroad. That's the solution. Take all the crap on the walmart shelves and send it back to china. Sell it to the chinese instead. We don't want it.
Remember people, exporting is how you get RICH. If you want to be poor, just keep buying stuff from abroad. Eventually you won't have a job anymore either. What goes around comes around folks.
The OP has given us a couple or bold proposals, both of which fly in the face of the conventional wisdom of the blogosphere. So far, nobody has addressed nor critiqued either of them, and instead this thread has merely vortexed into just another P&OC arena of the same tired old flying mantras.
Well, the problems with the first idea should be obvious. First of all, suddenly announcing that if you are unemployed you will get $3,000 a month from the US government creates all sorts of perverse incentives. Anyone making less than $3,000 a month is now actually better off by quitting their job - but of course, if that happens, then you either need to borrow much more than $15 billion or you need to offer a lot less than $3K per person. So, right out of the gate, you got a serious problem. Second, and perhaps equally important, theres then really no incentive for these people to get a job.
Third, how does this actually stimulate anything? When the $15B runs out, what has materially changed? All you've done is put $15B into the economy. Which I guess is the posters point, but the issues here are numerous - for starters, its highly unlikely that $15B will go towards "job producing" activities as the poster suggests (i.e. buying crap). Its much more likely some substantial portion of that $15B would go towards savings, paying down personal debt, home payments etc. Those are worthwhile things to be sure, but its a pretty shaky thought process to think that will somehow stimulate demand.
Then there's the problem of what happens when the $15B runs out - this supposed increase in demand stops - these unemployed folks who were spending $3,000 a month on crap (or more likely, werent) now suddenly aren't, and so you find yourself with shrinking demand, and increasing unemployment again.
Plan A is just funny - a lot of folks would not go to work NO MATTER WHAT the pay/situation was. They work only long enough to collect unemployment. I'm related to two of these people. If they can't get laid off, they get injured.
Plans like communism and socialism don't take into mind the GREED and SLOTH of the "everyday" man... people think rich folks are the greedy ones... I disagree strongly.
You do realize that the numbers are more like 24 million people that are out of work. Of those, 11 million are no longer on the unemployment line because they dropped off due to benefits ending or they took themselves off the list and have chosen not to look for work. Putting 5 million people to work, although a great thing, will not end unemployment.
People dont drop off the unemployment figures because their benefits ran out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
Not sure about you but when I get paid, I have to pay my mortgage, eat, pay the water bill, trash, electric, gas, and other living exspenses. By the time I get around to buying consumer products to put my hard earned money, or in this case, free money, back into the market, it is only a small percentage of what I earned. For most people in a situation where they have not had a regular income they may be behind in bills and guess where much of the money will be going? Even though you give them the $3,000 not a lot goes back into buying consumer goods.
If you gave a person $3000 a month tax free, quite a lot of that would end up back in the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
Just about everything that you are advocating has been tried since Obama became President. He has been trying to buy our way out of the recession. You do realize that 99 weeks of unemployment is not normal? Putting all that money out there to stimulate the economy has done little to stimulate the economy.
Nothing he advocated has been tried. Giving people a few more weeks of $200 a week checks isnt going to do anything. That isnt $3000 a month, thats about $870 a month, and its taxed! If you want to talk about things not ending back up in the economy on consumer goods, unemployment is one of them. Most people probably cant even cover rent on a whole month of checks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
Obama "saved" the auto industry. GM is now profitable they say. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat. What happened was that the products that were loosers were cut free and the profitable products stayed in business. Ford was the only manufacturer that did not run to Obama for help and they are doing fine from what I hear.
Giving some corporate goon a blank check is not identical to the government owning and operating the facility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
Why not let the market take care of itself? People will create new business operations that will make money, grow, and hire new people. In my area I have seen companies do just that.
Businesses do not just spontaneously expand. Even if they do, its not long before they contract without existing demand guiding them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
Why not build your own success and build a business of your own. Then you can add to the employment ranks by hiring some of the many unemployed people in your area.
What a great idea, lets sacrifice what little we have, to attempt to compete against well funded oligopolies. Lets see how that pans out for us. Oh wait....whats the failure rate for start ups again? Somewhere between 56 and 80 percent depending on the numbers you believe. Thats not including the businesses that are bleeding money and for all intensive purposes are failures, but technically are still alive.
Sounds like a terrific way to go bankrupt to me, particuliarly if your idea or skill isnt one of a kind.
Unfortunately, American's love the easy way. They love it so much that they would sell your entire country out, as well as any opportunity for their children, just to get another 20% off on an item that will break after a few months of gentle use. They love it so much they would even indirectly sabotage their own well being and potential income/job security to get that hot new trinket that will break their heart when it breaks and they have to buy a new one. Remember, money going overseas ain't coming back, cause no one want's to buy anything from a nation that doesn't produce anything of actual use (except debt of course).
Hey man, we produce financial instruments and related commodity bubbles! Wall Street is the biggest middle man on the planet....that has to be worth something right?
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,722 posts, read 58,054,000 times
Reputation: 46185
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow
Reinvent the WPA.... Well, it worked last time. And we certainly need infrastructure more than weapons systems.
Yes!!! ^^^^
GW really missed the boat on that grand opportunity
Parks could be improved + enhancing US power / connectivity grid at least to the level of 3rd world countries.
U.S.A. could benefit from 'Getting-over-themselves'
We could learn alot from other countries on Healthcare, EDU, & economy security (long term workforce planning). Instead, we continue to train kids for 20 yrs for careers that may not be there and skills that will not be needed. And PAY crazy medical costs due to our litigious and over privileged society
Zero unemployment in a few months with a stable economy. Here's how:
The government borrows $15 billion from China, and pays $3,000 as a monthly wage to $5-million unemployed workers. On payday, they all go out and spend that $15 billion. Employers hire workers to produce the goods and services those recipients buy, and pay them wages. For each one that gets hired, the government doesn't have to borrow their paycheck next month from China, so that $15 billion keeps going down. After a few months, everyone is hired,
You logic is flawed. Your assuming people are going to spend the entire $3,000 on goods and services which will in turn grow the economy. How ever you forgetting the massive amount of debt people have, especially people that have been unemployed for an extended period of time. They are going to use at least some of that $3,000 to pay down debt /make minimum payments, which will not grow the economy at all. Not to mention employers do not rush out and hire more employees because they were busy/more customers/more profit for one week. There a considerable lag time from when an employer / company business picks up to when they actually hire someone. The cost of your program is going to be 180 billion dollars for the first year, to pay 5 million people, you be lucky to see any hiring results within 3 months of the start of your program.
Also I don't see the difference between your program and unemployment. If a worker gets laid off and goes on unemployment, they are spending the unemployment money they are receiving from the government you would think there spending would create jobs and allow them to get rehired somewhere else.
That is an illusory figure. That 24-million counts everybody who has ever worked or has ever wanted to work.
That illusionary figure comes from the unemployment figures that the US posts each quarter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
