It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stimulus plans are NOT the solution; the solution is...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Ok, so I just had to write this, because it is astounding to me how a government full of ivy league graduates (of both parties...both Bush and Obama....and all their "economic experts") can be so blind. I mean, to me, the solution to our economic problems are so blindingly simple and the problmes are not nearly as complicated as our government leaders would like us to believe they are.

Fact: Our economy was healthy when we were a manufacturing based economy. Our economy used to be driven by manufactured goods.We had a large middle class, and that was good.

Fact: We are now a service-based economy, and our economy is now driven by consumer spending, not manufacturing. Our middle class is shrinking. This is bad because if this continues, soon we will be like Mexico; lots of very rich people and lots of very poor, but no middle class.

Fact: In a free-market economy; economic downturns happen. Cycles happen. It's the most basic fundamental concept of a free market economy; there will be cycles of ups and downs. The economy cannot always go up; that is not how a freemarket economy works!

Fact: In times of economic downturn, personal income often goes down. It is human nature to spend less if your personal income goes down. A smart person will do this.

Hence, if the entire country is headed for an economic downturn , it is human nature for the majority of people to say; Well, I better not spend so much now that the economy isn't so good. I'll hold off buying that car or that house or that expensive vacation until the economy improves. This is simple human nature. And it is also SMART behavior to do this.

Therefore: If we have an economy that is driven by consumer spending, and if we know that up and down cycles are natural in any free-market economy, then it cannot good economic policy to favor a spending-based economy over a manufacturing-based economy. Why? Because if it human nature to spend less in an economic downturn, and if the economy's health is totally dependent on this spending.....then the economy is DESTINED to fail when a huge downturn happens. It will just continue further and further down into a worse and worse downwards spiral, until the economy totally collapses. There is no other way around it.

Also...if our government is encouraging MORE consumer spending, which puts people at higher individual risk by depleting their savings....just to save the economy....then the government is willing to bankrupt the poeple to save the country. This is unethical, and poor economic policy.

Because it should be: what is good for the general public should be good for the country.

Instead, right now it is: The only way possible for the US to maintain our status quo, is for the general public to continue to spend and to continue to accumulate massive amounts of debt. This CANNOT be good for the country.

And obviously, it isn't....because now look where this policy has led us. We finally went into an economic downturn (which is normal) but because our economy depends on consumer spending, and because everyone is spending less, there is no way to get out of this rut...unless the government intervenes.

This means....the economic SYSTEM of our country has failed; because it is no longer a free-market economy.

I only took one economics class in college, but even I can see this. How can these "brilliant" Ivy League graduates not see the simple logic that the economic system of our country has failed....and if we want to recover, the answer is not throwing money after bad polices. The answer is simple....the answer is to CHANGE the current economic SYSTEM, not pump more money into a failing system.

Obama says his spending bill is a change. But all I see is that we're spending tons of money "life support" for a dying patient. We don't need CPR; we need an organ transplant!

The Fed banking system is a nightmare and should be abolished. Our current tax code is insane and unfair. The IRS should also be abolished and we should go to a national sales tax or a flat tax....NO loopholes or exceptions for anyone!

Have a flat tax system for sole proprietorships, small businesses and corporations, so small companies can compete with large corporations. This would bring back the "mom and pop" stores to America.

In the last 20 years, we have found that communism doesn't work due to human nature. We need to be willing to swallow our pride and admit that a totally free market economy doesn't work, either, due to human nature. In both extremes, there are corruption.

We spent so much time trying to convince the world that our way was better, but look what happened to us: we proved that "our way" can become just as corrupt as a socialist or a communist country.

And just as we had convinced the rest of the world to follow us....they got taken down with us. Great....we really set a great example there.

We need new solutions. New answers. New economic system. We need to get the greatest minds of the WORLD together and to work on a really good economic system; that will be good for the world.

And I don't mean that we need to combine countries. Let's keep our individual countries separate. Keep the Republic that our founders designed... is was beautifully designed. The problem is not the government system our founders set up; the problem is the government got mixed up in our government system, and that was it's downfall.

But let's go back to the drawing board, when it comes to the ECONOMY. If we could all find an economic system that benefits us all....wouldn't that be awesome???

Obama is right. Our country will crash if we don't do something soon. But I don't think a stimulus plan is the answer.

I love my country. But there needs to be some way to separate government and the economy!! People say you shouldn't mix religion and politics. Well, I say that we also shouldn't mix money and politics. Because look what happens.....everyone gets corrupt, and then we crash.

I have a vision: imagine graph that has 2 lines. One line would go straight accross...that would be the government's economy. A balanced budget every year; so the government stays stable. The other line could go up or down, due to natural fluctuations of supply and demand, etc.. That could be the over-all economy. But the second line would not affect the first line. That would be the ideal system; separation of money and state.

I think this is the way our forefathers of our country intended it to be, anyway.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The word you are looking for is profit. Everything in this world will only work for a profit. It is not about the continuation of the human race anymore, but a race of the business entities to take over everything.

I feel sorry for future generations, or maybe they will look back and feel sorry for us? who knows.

Edit to add: The government and the economy do not need to be separated, that is why this happened in the first place, due to basically no government regulation of the banking and financial sector.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by 1xion325alpha]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 1xion325alpha
 


I disagree. I think we do need to be separate money and politics. The problem with the government is not poor regulation. The problem is that the government started sticking their hands into every aspect of society into order to make money, and that only creates more problems down the road.

For example, want to get married? Well, first you have to pay the government for a license to get married. A license to get married, of all things?? Because of that, now we have this huge argument about gay marriage and straight marriage, because now marriage is not just something you do in a church; it's something that the government has to sanction. So, by putting their hands in cookie jar in first place, so they could get fees for marriage certificates, now we have to spend millions of dollars in tax money to legislate gay marriage...because we originally legislated straight marriage. It only created more problems.

(I am not against gay marriage by the way. If gay people want to get married, fine by me! But laws need to be passed, which cost more money, because the government got invovled in the first place. See how it works?? It's a vicious cycle.)

Another example: Want to go fishing for your dinner? First you have to buy a fishing license. We have to have a license to eat!!! (I'm surprised we don't tax the bears in Alaska during salmon season!)

Let's say your'e vegetarian, like me, and you want to form a vegetable co-op with local familes. Nope illegal..the government gets involved, and raids your co-op, because you're not registered as a food wholesaler. By regulating that, we then have to spend millions of more dollars in regulation of small co-ops. And because of that, they don't have the resources to regulate large food processors, like the peanut factory in Georgia, that spread salmonella around and killed 57 people.

Want to start a business? The government wants not only personal income from your salary from the business, but wants to tax the profits on your business, too. The paperwork makes it almost impossible to hire your first employees.

The problem started with TOO MUCH government intrusion. They stuck their hand in the areas where they thought that they could make more money, and then because of that, we end up spending MORE money to correct the problems created by the fact that the government got involved in the first place.

Even the housing crisis problem was caused because the government made a law that stated more poor people had to have access to homes. Well, poor people cannot qualify for a normal loan...so the sub-prime loan was invented. I'm not excusing what the bankers did, but part of the reason they did it because the government mandated that they had to provide loans to poor people. So, the sub-prime loans were created by corrupt bankers who took advantage of the situation.

Why did the govt do that? Because not enough people could afford homes. Why? Because of a lot of reasons, but by trying to make a quick fix (laws) instead of a complete system over-haul, we ended up in a housing crisis....and a depresion.

Another example, the government's unwillingness to regulate health care insurance companies makes it impossible for many Americans to survive financially if they get really sick and or have pre-existing conditions. Yet they get over-involved in the welfare of illegal immigrants, they allow millions of illegal immigrants to go on public welfare and they get free government benefits and healthcare. (I know, I live in Arizona. It makes me so angry; illegal immigrants get free healthcare, where just down the street, a homeless vet with PTSD can't get basic healthcare.)

They could make regulations to make it easier for everyone to have access to health care, but they won't because of lobbying efforts of special interest groups; big pharma, physician groups, etc.. For example, they restrict access to lay homeopaths and herbalists in many states, which is wrong. Also, they restrict pharmacists from dispensing most medications over the counter, even in chronic conditions.

I'm a pharmacist, and in almost every country in the world, pharmacists can prescribe medications from behind the counter. Here, we can't even renew a medication for a chronic illness, much less prescribe, because the physician groups don't want pharmacists to prescribe; they say it's unethical to prescribe and dispense. (Although now, many physicians are doing just that; they are bypassing the pharmacies and dispensing their own medication, because they can make a huge profit. So, it's not ok for pharmacists to prescribe or renew prescriptions, but it's ok for physicians to dispense them?)

Anyway, because physicians lobbying groups give billions of groups in lobbying, people can't just walk into a pharmacy to get their usual blood pressure medication from the pharmacist that they've been on for years. And because of health insurance lobbying groups, these people can't afford the health insurance. And because they don't put caps on health care prices, the person can't afford to go to their doctor's office to get a prescription, or go to the urgent care. So what happens? The patient "strokes out", and THEN the government pays for their ER visit and hospitalization, or even their disability for the rest of their life.

So, we now have GREATER costs because of MORE regulation.

And that's part of the reason why we now need nationalized health; because the government regulated and restricted access to basic health care by non-physicians, and the high costs of physician care are too high. You don't need to see a doctor every time you get sick, or for every prescription renewal, but that is how the system is set up now.

And look at the financial policies of our country; they'll fund the IRS to go after someone who made a mistake on their own personal finances to the full extend of the law, but they do nothing when someone like Madoff swindles billions of dollars in a fraud? They let him stay in his multi-million dollar mansion on house arrest?

It's not under-regulation that is the problem, it's over-regulations and unfair regulations that are the problem; because these over-regulations (and unfair regulations) then spawn more problems down the road, that then need to be regulated and funded.

Government regulation is a vicious cycle.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
How on earth could a totally unregulated economy be eventually more just than a regulated economy??

You heard of the industrial revolution? A completely "free" market! Free of any restriction, based only on the rule of the jungle.

Or the whole system of Wall Street: All the rich people with insider knowledge fool the dumb guys who invest their pennies.

Not just



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wachstum
How on earth could a totally unregulated economy be eventually more just than a regulated economy??

You heard of the industrial revolution? A completely "free" market! Free of any restriction, based only on the rule of the jungle.

Or the whole system of Wall Street: All the rich people with insider knowledge fool the dumb guys who invest their pennies.

Not just


I wasn't calling for a totally unregulated economy. I was calling for an economy that is not regulated by the government!! Getting the government involved is madness, and only leads to uncontrolled spending.

Ok, I just thought of something....how about an economy that is regulated by itself? They (American corporations) could create their own pseudo government (more like a board) but they wouldn't have the right to pass laws.

Kind of like the way the church is today, but without the guilt! LOL!

Seriously, though, the economic "board" could create their own regulations, but they would remain separate from government regulations. They would monitor themselves. It woudl be more like a "board of regents" or something like that. A National Economic Board.

And if corporations were taxed fairly, there wouldn't be a bunch of corruption like there is now, I think.

That way, if the economy fails, the government does not fail. That's what I'm saying. It's wrong that an entire government should fail just because the economy fails. They should be separate.

And that way, people can choose to work for the government, or for themselves (entrepreneurs and small businesses), or within large companies. These large companies would fall underneath the jurisdiction of the economic board.

It would be kind of like a fraternity, except the only qualification you need in order to "Pledge" is that you are a corporation.

If the economy had it's own leaders, the corporations could lobby the economic board, but the board, but the board would have no power of law....it would only be a leader of the economic community, setting rules and regulations of the board, that are separate from the government.

And if you don't like the rules and regulations.....you just be a sole proprietor or small business. You stay small. But if you want to grow....there are fundamental rules you have to adhere to.

Just an idea. I haven't thought it through or anything...it just came to mind.

Members or lobbyists of the "economic society" would not be allowed to lobby the government on behalf of your corporation. You could, as a business owner, contact your congressman or congresswoman in person. But because a corporation has no vote, a corporation should not be allowed to lobby members of the government.

However...then the corporations would cry "taxation without representation" if we outlawed lobbying. Hmmm...

Ok, so here's another solution: the economic society (the society of corporations) could have representation in the government. When they elect heads of the society, they would be congressman or representatives, just like a "state".

This would limit the powers of the corporations, which right now, are unchecked! Right now, because the lobby almost all government members, Corporate America power is uncontrolled and corrupted.

But if they had their own Congressmen and Senators....they would have "representation" because they are taxed.

Another choice is to just abolish any business taxes whatsoever, and just have everything taxed by sales tax. That would be more fair. Then, we could make a law stating that corporations could not lobby government regulators; only individual citizens can. Then, they couldn't cry "Taxation without representation!"

Or, maybe here's another idea: create a fourth branch of the government. We could have the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the economic branch.

Maybe that would give us more checks and balances???

In any case, however it is accomplished, our current system is NOT working, either!


[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I just thought of something else: if we created a 4th branch of government; we could bring the banks into that branch. It would be the economic (banking/corporate) banch. That way, we would eliminate the banking system as it is now (completely unfair!) and make it part of the 4th branch of government.

The 4th branch of government could somehow regulate the banks and the corporations; and if there were official representation in the government, there would be more checks and balances than there are now.

Right now, our banking system and our coroporate system are completely unregulated. The lobbying powers are insane; because they are allowed to lobby all congressmen and senators; corporations and special interest groups have more control than individual Americans, despite the fact that they have no vote!!

What we need instead is a 4th branch of government that gives them representation; but without unlimited power.

And then, if we did that, we could make "lobbying" of the legislative branch completely illegal. Because that is where the problems start.

Or, if we didn't want to give corporations-bankers a complete separate branch of the government, we could just create a 51st "state": the corporate state. That way they get a vote, and they get a say in Congress, but they don't get unlimited power anymore.

Therefore, the solution is: abolishing the tax system as it is; abolishing the federal banking system as it is; separation of money and the legislative branch (which is what causes corruption); while still giving corporations an official say in the government, in a way that provides checks and balances, with either a 51st state or a 4th branch of government.

And if we abolished the federal banking system as it is now, we would have to incorporate the banking system directly into our government (In fact, it's taking place right now.) The problem is, is if the legislators get a hold of all that money in the banking system...it will be gone quicker than you can say "who wants to be a millionaire?"

But if we created a 4th branch of government, the banking-corporation branch, the legisoators wouldn't go crazy with with banking funds.

And the 4th branch of government could also be given the duty of making sure we have a balanced budget every year!!! Yes, let the bankers balance the budget. That's what they're good at ...they're good at numbers. That can be their task.

Let the legislators make laws...because they suck at balancing budgets.

Let the corporations make money....that's what they're good at. And if htey are free to make money without being taxed unfairly....then they they can contribute to economic policies, too.

Checks and balances. Let those who are good with numbers work with numbers. Keep the legislators OUT of the economic duties of the government.

Oooh. I'm going to have to put this on a bunch of diagrams and post it online for everyone to see. I'll let you know when I'm done.






[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I somewhat agree with your propositions.


I do not so much think of "government" in conjunction with the economy, as I do politics in government and the economy.

How many $%@! LOBBYISTS are after the government's teats???
How many of our dollars are paying for the special interests?

Get rid of every last one of those bastards and things might get a little better.
At least, such a move would remove some of the smoke and fog in the legislative process.

Just how many lobbyists have been incorporated in our present administration? I heard that NONE would find a place in THIS administration. But as I have pointed out before, there are always loopholes. A good lobbyist knows how to jump through the loopholes. Too bad there is not a very big bear trap waiting for them when they do... fewer lobbyists



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
, the solution to our economic problems are so blindingly simple and the problmes are not nearly as complicated as our government leaders would like us to believe they are.

Fact: Our economy was healthy when we were a manufacturing based economy. Our economy used to be driven by manufactured goods.We had a large middle class, and that was good.

Fact: We are now a service-based economy, and our economy is now driven by consumer spending, not manufacturing. Our middle class is shrinking. This is bad because if this continues, soon we will be like Mexico; lots of very rich people and lots of very poor, but no middle class.





wow, you sure put a lot of plates on the table.... & a good job doing so


there's only 2 items that i would address,

the first item are the TWO 'Fact:' points in the caption above,
concerning a country no longer steeped in 'Manufacturing' Industries...


Once we were a nation that 'put our noses to the grindstone'
and worked like mechanized robots for 30 years at a job...

like the classic TV couples 'The Honeymooners'
where the wives stayed at home, the men worked drudgery careers;
Ralph Kramden a Bus Driver,
Ed Norton a Sewer worker,


www.clown-ministry.com...

That kind of mindset & dedication came to an end... as the average person after the 1960 Kennedy election, said that kind of life isn't for me.


so... it was a social paradigm which changed the social-economic world,
and the continuing growing middle class with more wealth---& expecting a better lifestyle without the drudgery of mindless production as the norm
which brought about the changes in

business, industry, politics/policy, finance... every aspect of American
life & leisure changed accordingly...


Our collective desire to live the life of luxury caused the structural changes in the business/industry models of the immediate Post War years
of Truman & Eisenhower... the Kennedy aura skewed the whole American
economic machine....


thanks,



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 




What we really need to seperate... are the ones who created all the toxic
& fraud ridden debt instruments (derivatives) which are now destroying
the trust & faith which allowed the banking & monetary system to work.



find all the top executives & boards of directors
of all the mega finance firms & banks & insurers,
from the early 1990's-2008 inclusive....
~most will be found in the dozen major market-makers
that have so far benefitted some $2.5 Trillion in various Bailouts already~


prosecute these people as 'Kingpin' Racketeers & Gangsters...
recover their off-shore accounts when found guilty, seize all their
ill gotten gains...& house them in the tropical environs of Guatanimo Base
that is being vacated of the former military terrorists
in exchange with the newly sentenced Economic Terrorists...

plain & simple



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Those are all very good points. Thank you for bringing them up.

I think it's fine that middle class wanted to move up and out of the manufacturing jobs. That's the American dream for immigrants. In fact, that's what my family did.

I am descended from (mostly) poor Irish and Italian immigrants, and some of them became factory workers when they came to America. Although it wasn't the best or the most exciting job....it provided them with a stable earning, and the chance to earn a good living. They also had the chance to give their kids something better. I was lucky. My Italian grandfather was a blue-collar factory worker, then my dad went to college and became a salesman. Then I went to college and became a medical professional. Although I am still very much in the middle class, I am not in a factory job.

We (our generation) are lucky that the "American dream" was available to our parents and grandparents.

But the problem is, it was the manufacturing jobs that made the middle class possible, and now the very manufacturing base that made our middle class were then then shipped over-seas. So, instead of leaving those good-paying blue-collar jobs for the next group of workers behind us (such as new immigrant families) to take our place... those jobs were shipped overseas. And that erodes the middle class.

So now, the poorest workers in our country have fewer options to make a better life for themselves. The poor cannot afford college, because the costs are so outrageous now (My dad was lucky, when he went to college, tuition was free because he went to a state school).

I have no problem for the middle class moving up and out of the manufacturing jobs. Our family did it. But we should have kept those jobs here....so the people behind us would also have good jobs.

Instead, we sent those jobs to India and Pakistan and China. No offense to their workers, but if we don't want our middle class to completely disappear, we have to bring the manufacturing jobs back to America, to continue the middle-class tradition.

I think we need an economic branch of the government to keep corporate corruption in check, to keep banking corruption in check, and to guarantee the continuation of a middle class. Because if we want the American dream to continue, we need to keep the middle class alive, and we need to minimize corruption.

Otherwise, we're going to end up just like Mexico. There are no good jobs there; which is one of the reasons they drug trade is flourishing and why the Mexican government is at war with the drug lords. Drug trafficking is one of the few ways to make good money in Mexico, because they don't have many jobs.




[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by nikiano]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join