It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Could a $5 billion investment save the U.S economy?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:28 AM
Rockpuck is right.

There's alot of talk about not granting to those who are successful. Think about it though.

The successful have made money. Give a successful person cash, and they'll build companies, they invest to grow other companies, they leverage cash for further investment.

The unsuccessful invest in liabilities. Give an unsuccessful person cash, and it will be spent on; cars, car mods, home stereo, flat panel, game stations, food and alcohol, maybe pay off some credit card bills. Ok, maybe I would put cash in my trading account and let it sit there because the market is acting reversed.

Point is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you invest in successful people than unsuccessful and inexperienced people.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:36 AM
I dont think that would save the U.S economy.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by skekke]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

The SBA doesn't deal in amounts this small.

Acrually, the SBA's definition of a small business is pretty large if you check it out:

(2) Including its affiliates, tangible net worth not in excess of $8.5 million, and average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the preceding two completed fiscal years not in excess of $3.0 million. If the applicant is not required by law to pay Federal income taxes at the enterprise level, but is required to pass income through to its shareholders, partners, beneficiaries, or other equitable owners, the applicant's “net income after Federal income taxes” will be its net income reduced by an amount computed as follows: op2=and;rgn2=Section;op3=and;rgn3=Section;view=text;idno=13;node=13%3A1.;rgn=div5#13:

The kind of program I am defining is not the kind the SBA currently has. "Small " for the SBA is only small in reference to corporations.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by Dbriefed

What a weird way to look at lufe.

Only successful people can be successful is what you seem to be saying.

I'm saying that there are hundreds of thousands of potentially successful people within our country who lack only the seed capital to create new products, new companies, new paradigms. Anyone who can take $50k and create a new product to build a company around would be very successful in my book, and I would expect several thousand to emerge from such a program.

Look around you: how long has it been since you've seen an actually new product? Most"innovations" are merely embellishments of long-existing ones. We live in a fairly sterile business environment that emphasizes stability over innovation, gambling over invention, lobbying over creativity.

The old capitalist class is done, bankrupt of any ideas other than creative gambling and new fee structures.

All across the country there are innovators, dreamers, and designers whose inventions would upset the current business applecart, so those ideas will neer see the light of day until and unless a program gets money down to the root level.

We've tried showering the top of the economy with trillions of dollars of grants and they've created zero jobs with it, because their goal is to reduce the cost of labor. They aren't interested in job creation.

We need to restart the economic plankton: those companies too small to count on the corporate scale, but whose existence is vital to real job creation. We need money injected into the bottom of the scale, money that will generate growth and jobs.

Everything tried so far hasn't worked and we are slowly twisting in the winds of decline and decay while the banksters party. Sure, it's a gamble, but what have we got to lose? $5 billion isn't that much, and the stimulus effect alone would be far out of proportion to the risk. When you factor in the potential new products and new companies, it seems like a sure winner.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by apacheman]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:39 AM
Actually a successful track record insures a successful future. Top athletes, race car drivers, executives, sales people will most probably continue to be successful. The lowest ranked peers will most probably continue to be unsuccessful.

I have experience with unsuccessful family members. Give them a dollar to pay off a debt, and that dollar gets them $2 in other debt that I end up having to cover. In the past some were for whacked out ideas like selling Amway or Teflon-20 or farming worms to sell. Usually the money doesn't go to signing up for a class or aiming for a professional certificate of some sort.

Most angel and VC investors here in Silicon valley know what it takes to achieve lift-off. Even after much due diligence, many small companies never make it off the runway. The keys are; #1 a management team with prior successes, #2 serve a demand, #3 be frugal. Enthusiasm is not enough, if the team is right and idea has merit and the company frugal, the business will be profitable and only needs investment to expand markets.

Creativity in Silicon Valley is at an all time high; cloud computing, 3D games, cellphone video chat, hybrid ssd/mechanical drives, LED monitors, and numerous new technologies that are waiting for the right application. Unfortunately when I screen resumes for key technical experience and skills, only a small percentage are US born and raised.

A big problem is the lack of proper education and skills in the US population. And the feeling of entitlement, not just social services, but corporate preference. There's a big need for the right skills, but it's hard to find the right skills in US workers.

Want to improve the economy? Then reduce taxes, and require every worker to invest a portion of their salary in continuous education on how to view and do things the right way.

Don't take money from successful people who are building companies and jobs, and don't give money to unsuccessful people and unproven ideas.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Oh, great. Another great idea from you (along with the $1 billion wealth cap and the psychiatric screening.)

Great ideas (and they come in decade long intervals) will still have to be marketed, materials procured, R&Died, etc. In short, you'll need lots of funding. Not just $5 B. This is why I love capitalists. They are the ones who build and destroy nations. (sorry great workers, you're not that important.)

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:14 PM
Given the sad state of affairs and the utter lack anything remotely resembling a coherent idea for improvement from the so-called "leadership", whether political or business, I still think this is a viable and cheap program to try. In the grand scheme of things, $5 billion isn't much.

Think of it this way: fertilizer for the plankton or the roots of the economy; all the tiny little businesses and self-employed from whom the real ideas emerge that the corporations feed upon when they've gotten large enough.

If you view the economy as an ecosystem, we have one in which we have too many top-level predators because we have too few of them.

Sound illogical?

We have too many in the sense that they've stripped out their food sources: the tiny and micro companies, and prevent the wealth accumulation to start new ones.

The reason is that there are too few to provide enough competition to keep the predators in check long enough to allow the base of the system to replenish properly.

In search of greater "efficiency" more and more mid-sized companies are being subsumed into big corporate entities without anything replacing them

So something needs doing at the bottom of the business scale, and just because you or big business can't think of a way to produce a new product with a $50K grubstake, there are a huge number of would-be entrepreneurs who simply lack access to seed capital. Most might fail, but theywould be smarter and tougher for it, and if any succeeded it would be a better return on the dollar than any corporate subsidy I've seen lately.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by apacheman

I like where you are going with this. Might I add an additional possibility. I would imaging if you give it a time frame, of say 6 mths, to come up with a rough business plan. Take all applications and lump them into categories that were similar in nature, or product. I would think there would be duplicate or like ideas. Group these people together, even if they are from different states. So they can develop and produce things hand and hand across the country. It might be a way to help more people within the given budget, and it would be a way to share ideas and improve on the products and services being offered, and finally, I think employment potential would grow exponentially.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by apacheman

I don't think it work for a couple of reasons:

1. The government would skim the cash or at a minimum place such an administrative overhead on the business that it would either consume the cash or create so much paperwork that the folks would not be able to grow the business - they would be filling out forms. There would absolutely be folks who would steal the cash, which would mean a government oversight/enforcement infrastructure - another 1000 IRS agents looking to jam folks up.

2. The government would absolutely insist that the criteria for the loans be based on demographics, not merit. X loans to gay folks, X to specific minorities, X based on geography. You would not get the best and brightest folks getting rewarded unless you had a blind submission process and the government would never do that.

3. $50K is not really enough to seriously get into business. The money would be used to secure debt from banks (or the government) either way, the majority of these businesses would go bust, leaving the banks with worthless debt or the government with it. Freddy Mac for small business.

Better to eliminate business taxes for a period of 5 years, exempt businesses from needing to provide for health care and workman's comp for a period and provide significant deductions for a period of time.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by apacheman

only the order 11110 of JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY could have saved your USA!
now it's too late!
not even 5000 bilions will not save USA if you americans don't change your lifestyle and "habit" of looting THE WORLD IN ORDER TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD A S,.. ONE!

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

1. The $5 billion would be the total grant amount. Overhead is extra, and could be kept to probably around 1-2%. I suppose government fees should be waived also.

2. The project ideas should be submitted to two layers of scrutiny:

a. Blind layer: each idea is considered on its merits, basing judgement on whether materials, market, workforce, etc., are feasibly accounted for. No names, genders, orientations or ethnicities. That should satisfy equal rights.

b. Pitch layer: presentation by applicant before the committee so they can evaluate the applicants' personalities, abilities, and ethics.

3. Define business. Many people I know could start one with a $50K kickstart. That would pay for a delivery truck, computer for a website, gardening service, lunch truck, jewelry making, walking sticks, calendars, art projects like a concert...remember the kind of businesses we are talking about: tiny ones, with one or two people to start. An entrepreneur worth his or her salt will leverage the original amount into success. although $75K would be better but more expensive, and closer to the point that makes it worthwhile for corporate skimming.

Eliminating business taxes does nothing to crate new businesses, it just subsidizes the existing ones.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by apacheman

The government has never kept overhead to 1-2% for any program in history. Be nice if they could, but they are unable.

It would be impossible for the government to be blind in this kind of thing. The political interests would make it impossible. Were they to do the pitch thing, the bias would come into play

I think your idea has some merit, but I would make the grants $500K. That is enough dough to hire some folks immediately. The tax issue is key - being exempted from business taxes the business financials become more predictable. I would also exempt the owners of the business from federal income tax for a period.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

Perhaps a two-tier program of small and large grants? Given the end of the scale we are discussing it would probably be feasible to offer an additional 10,000 grants of $150,000 (an additional 1.5 billion cost) to bigger ideas and needs.

Half a million per just makes it worthwhile for the corporate scam artists to pay attention.

Remember we aren't doing this for the direct benefit of or to compete with corporations, but to reeastablish American business seed stocks as it were.

It follows the advice:

"Take care of the little thngs and the big things will take care of themselves"

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by Dbriefed

You are looking at the wrong scale: the kinds of businesses I an referring to aren't the sort the vc types would fund because they aren't big enough and never in all likelhood would be since they wouldn't grow into mega-corporations or generate hundreds of millions in profits.

They would merely support a few jobs and the microbusinesses that provide them, which in turn supports the local economy by stimulating local economic activity. The trick is that it would occur in thousands of places at the root level, providing for local needs and services in ways big business can't or won't.

Feed the roots and the plants grow tall and healthy, starve them and it dies.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:15 PM
Have you taken a look at the US national debt clock recently, $5 billion would bailout America for only about 24 hours LOL

edit on 25-2-2011 by NeoSpace because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:46 PM
According to the International Bankers I've been in the board room with, the Iraqi Dinar is the worlds hope on their unmanageable debt.

When a stable gov't is in place there, their currency will be re-evaluated based on Iraq's oil reserves. It isn't sweet crude but the Dinar is expected to move from pennies on the dollar (U.S.) to near $3.00 give or take $.50!

Been hearing it awhile, but the guy I was listening to in conversation is in charge of a trillion dollar hedge fund. I think it's the second biggest in the world?

I'm not a professional investment dude so please don't take this any more seriously than the hear-say it is at the end of the day. But there is hope...I think?

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by TreadUpon

I've also seen and invested in the machine (VCR sized) that will save 30% on energy costs for every building that's plugged into it. All by itself it can run all communications and utilities for an entire neighborhood...I wish I could tell you guys more about that one!

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in