How are we going to create jobs and rebuild our economy? What is the best path to take?

reply to post by ukWolf

H.R. 6550 would ABOLISH the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking if implemented

This is the most important move. Getting rid of Fractional Reserve Banking which has become ZERO reserve banking! A bank hands you a contract (mortgage, credit card, loan) you sign on the dotted line. The bank creates the "money" they "lend you" on the spot with a few key stokes and now you have to pay that amount plus interest back with your LABOR. It is theft/fraud on a very massive scale and has drained our country dry.

This is the best short explanation of Keynesian Economics, the economic model the Bankers have foisted off on the American people for a hundred years.

The Irresponsibility of Ben Bernanke and How He Will Destroy the Dollar

...Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing approach is immoral, failed Keynesianism and harmful. ..... It is a deliberate but hidden default on government obligations. It steals from taxpayers because it is a hidden tax on income and wealth. In all of these respects, it is outright theft!

...All economists know the solution to unemployment is lower real wages.

All economists know the solution to unemployment is lower real wages. A central part of Keynes’ theory was the notion of money illusion. Keynes believed that workers would not accept nominal decreases in wages but that they could be fooled via inflation, a belief that only an elitist could have. If the cost of living goes up and wages stay the same, then real wages go down and presumably employment goes up (or down less than it otherwise would). Inflation, the critical tool in the Keynesian paradigm, has been used regularly. Since the formation of the Federal Reserve, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen almost 96%.

Inflation, the critical tool in the Keynesian paradigm, has been used regularly. Since the formation of the Federal Reserve, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen almost 96%.

Could Bernanke Spark a Run on the Dollar?

...QE2′s greatest shortcoming is that is really doesn’t create jobs as advertised. It’s just more supply side, “trickle down” monetary theory designed to goose the market while workers languish in unemployment lines. Here’s how the Wall Street journal’s Kelly Evans summed it up: ”…the limits of monetary policy are becoming clearer. History suggests any further easing probably would do too much for the stock market and asset prices, and too little for jobs.The only real fix is to lower the cost of U.S. workers relative to foreign rivals and machines, or else raise their bang for the buck. The latter, while clearly preferable, requires education and training that won’t turn things around overnight.” (“The Fed’s Magic Show Appears to Be Over”, Wall Street Journal)

In other words, the Fed is planning to give every working man and woman in the US a big pay-cut so they can go nose-to-nose with foreign labor.

You can see how this blends seamlessly with Obama’s State of the Union Speech where he focused on “competition” as his central theme. More importantly, Obama reiterated his pledge to double exports in the next 5 years. The only way that can be achieved is by destroying the dollar.

An alternate Economic model is explained in Mises on Money


In his book Human Action, Mises states the government's task is to enforce contracts. Obviously the whole concept of "Fractional Reserve Banking" is based on breaking contracts. Banking should comply with the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations. This includes "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") an essential element of a contract.

There are a couple key points brought up by Mises. (This is my take and I am no economist so read the article Mises on Money )

1. Money does not create value (wealth) it is only a method used to facilitate "barter" or the exchanges of products and labor within the market. Just like any other product in the market, if the supply of money increases the demand decreases and "prices" rise. Mises defined money as the most marketable commodity. Again it origin is the barter system. Money transmits value through time, but money does not measure value.


2. The second concept is new money does not appear magically in everyone's bank accounts or under their mattresses. It starts with the loans made by bankers who "lend " the new money into existence. As the money supply increases we see "price inflation" as the money "trickles down" into the economy.

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached [consumers] by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits... a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game.

[3.] If output is rising in a free market, and the money supply is fairly constant, then prices will fall. The market's clearing price is that price which allows a sale in which there are no further buyers or sellers at the sale price. The high bid wins. When output is rising, buyers of money (sellers of goods) increase their bids by offering more goods for sale at the old price. This is another way of saying that prices denominated in money fall,

He speaks of "a general tendency of money prices and money wages to drop" (p. 417). This is not deflation, which Mises defined as a decrease in the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. Price competition is not deflation. Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...

How are we going to create jobs and rebuild our economy? What is the best path to take?,

Once we start an honest debate on whether our chosen economic path (unlimited growth based on free market capitalism) is the correct one. Until that happens you will see nothing but bandaids trying to stem the blood flow of a gash.

reply to post by St Udio

You then become a 'corporation' and compensation is less than taxes on wages, You can deduct every 'business lunch' instead of just the elites doing it.... Wake Up citizens

I agree that Small Business is the way to go. The question is whether the big boys will "allow" small businesses to continue to exist.



However the big guys who control the world do not want the competition and use regulation and the corporate/government revolving door to smash small business. The symbiotic connection between government and business is reaching alarming levels in light of recent evidence indicating that government officials and business executives are increasingly one and the same.

Over my life time I have seen different small business niches come under the guns of corporate/government and the resulting disappearance of many small businesses.


Here is just one example of how the real world works:
The nasty underbelly of what actually went on as the USDA, FDA big Ag and the MSM convinced the public we needed the World Trade Organization/United Nations to write our food regulations by intentionally poisoning our food.

The number of meat processing plants in Texas declined by about 53 percent. Also existing small plants reduced "product mix" In other words I could get chickens and rabbits custom slaughtered as well as my sheep and goats. Now it is a two to three month wait for a slaughter date for a cow and only the Halal butcher still does sheep and goats... at double the previous price. Forget Chickens and rabbits.

The media told the general public that food regs had not changed since 1938 and this was the cause of the increase food borne illness.... Ya Right

Exit of Meat Slaughter Plants During Implementation of PR/HACCP
ABSTRACT
Implementation of the Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (PR/HACCP) regulations has occurred across all U.S. meat and poultry plants. A probit model is estimated to determine which factors have affected the probability of red meat slaughter plant exit during implementation of the regulations. While controlling for plant-level, company-level, regional-level, and supply conditions that may affect the probability of plant exit, smaller plants are found to exhibit a much greater probability of exit than larger plants.....

.....Although species go extinct on Earth on a regular basis, every so often there is a major event that comes along and wipes out 40 or 50 percent of them. The same thing happens in the small business world. A few businesses fold every year due to retirement, poor management, and changes in the market, and that is quite normal. But then every so often a catastrophe comes along and causes a wholesale wipeout.

.... The most recent extinction event occurred at the turn of the millennium, when small and very small USDA-inspected slaughter and processing plants were required to adopt the costly Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) food safety plan. It has been estimated that 20 percent of existing small plants, and perhaps more, went out of business at that time.... www.theatlantic.com...

The exit had a helping hand from the USDA and ConAgra

This is a small part of a 21 page report of ONE incident.

This investigative report, as part of an ongoing series on corporate and government accountability, was researched and written by GAP Legal Director, Tom Devine.

...The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has just completed the first phase
of an investigation....

Starting in late summer 2000, FSIS repeatedly discovered that ConAgra had been receiving products returned from its customers as E. coli O157:H7 positive.....

Each time the agency allowed the tainted beef to be cooked and reentered into commerce, without warning the public or imposing systematic corrective action. The USDA did not require ConAgra to recall all other product produced on the same day as the E. coli O157:H7 contaminated returned product, even though the same processing equipment produced all of the product for the entire day. This significantly increased the odds that the rest of the product was likewise contaminated. Overall, the government’s noninterference may have shielded over 90% of ConAgra ground beef over a two year period after USDA was on notice that the public was in danger....

USDA has set the pace in passive resistance to traceback of contaminated products to the source of public health threats. Its paperwork for government E. coli tests did not even have a line to fill in the origin of product sent for laboratory testing. It made a record of where the tainted beef was found, but skipped where it came from....

4) USDA engaged in persistent, ugly retaliation against anyone who attempted to expose the ongoing cover up, whether the whistleblower is government or corporate, employee or small business. While corporate workers have state of the art free speech rights created in Sarbanes Oxley, small businesses are excluded. As a result of the harassment, Mr. Munsell has been forced to sell his business. Further, the Whistleblower Protection Act for government workers is bankrupt, and the agency has taken advantage by purging its top HACCP talent. It appears they are being systematically replaced with staff too green to catch disintegrating food safety standards, let alone protest....

5) The regulatory double standard is a microcosm why the integrity of HACCP is at risk. The ConAgra-USDA cover up sustains a pattern of using HACCP as a vehicle to obstruct its staff from enforcing food safety laws at big business, while bullying small businesses such as family firms....

RETALIATION AGAINST GOVERNMENT WHISTLEBLOWERS

FSIS smashed anyone who challenged its efforts to protect ConAgra from accountability, not just Mr. Munsell. After Mr. Smith took charge of the Munsell dispute from Washington, every official was moved off the job who blew the whistle internally on harassment of MQF, or who sought accountability from ConAgra. The harassment victims ranged from inspectors to supervisory vets. In some instances the agency simply isolated them from the case. Numerous whistleblowers have reported that the Inspector General staff’s primary interest was to attack the critics, while discouraging or only grudgingly accepting evidence of agency misconduct to shield ConAgra. Agency management forced some of the agency’s most seasoned veterinarians out of the government through steady harassment....

www.whistleblower.org...

The problem with governining is that the larger and more diverse your people get - the harder it is to please everyone.

Sorry, no. The problem with governing is that it relies on the initiation of force in every action it takes. Since a government can be more properly defined as a 'monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical region', the moral right the State claims to attack others is its defining and distinguishing characteristic. Thus governments themselves are inheriently evil, as they are predicated upon aggression. (aggression = objectively and universally evil.)

Remember that these people making the laws are elected by the people, so people must agree with what they say or what their intentions are.

If you and I were subject to this vote, and you voted because you see nothing wrong with forcing others to comply via force, and I did not vote for the exact opposite reason, and your 'side' won, and passed some law that stripped me of more freedoms, increased bureaucratic control over me, or increased my tax (theft) burden, and I opposed fundamentally all of these measures...would you feel comfortable in throwing me in jail for not complying with you and your 'majorities' dictates?

Conversely, if you come to my house, and my friends and I 'vote' on if we should mug you or not, and the vote passed by a slim margin, would you consider us morally justified in our actions? After all, we were in the majority, right?

Sometimes I think we should have more nationwide referrendums such as for joining the EU (which we never got) and even possibly declaring war.

And if I dont give my consent to be ruled by your majority? What if I want nothing to do with your declared war?

Would I force you? I would definetley use force if you continued to spread hate, incite hate or endanger the people i.e. murderering. But I wouldn't stop you protesting peacefully.

Self defense is not aggression and is totally justified morally. I noticed you said 'continue to spread hate'. What hate have I spread previously? What if I hate the warmongers in power and I spread that belief?

So inclusion I believe yes they can on a basic level and without law and order comes chaos and destruction. Does that answer your question?

And without a violent monopoly, would chaos and destruction be the inevitable result? Cuz currently Im seeing a lot of chaos and destruction, and the State has never been more powerful.

By the way are you an anarchist?

I accept Anarchism as the only consistent conclusion of the Non Aggression Principle.

Several of the comments left here seem to have hit the proper point. Its about the American outsourcing of jobs. We need to implement tarriffs on goods manufactured by American companies in foriegn countries. The tarriffs are essentially the companies' way to reimburse the USA for the societal costs of the loss of these jobs. If companies wish to have overseas manufacturing facilities so they can better serve local markets, then they are free to do so, and frankly, more power to them. However, any goods produced for the domestic market should be taxed just to the point where it is more profitable to produce them in America than in another country.

Originally posted by CaptHowdy
Several of the comments left here seem to have hit the proper point. Its about the American outsourcing of jobs. We need to implement tarriffs on goods manufactured by American companies in foriegn countries. The tarriffs are essentially the companies' way to reimburse the USA for the societal costs of the loss of these jobs. If companies wish to have overseas manufacturing facilities so they can better serve local markets, then they are free to do so, and frankly, more power to them. However, any goods produced for the domestic market should be taxed just to the point where it is more profitable to produce them in America than in another country.

If your neighbor produced decent hand crafted wicker chairs for $100 and which you considered to be decent value, but then some guy in the next town somehow began producing wicker chairs of the same quality for $50, would you be willing to pay a neighborhood watch group of some kind $10/month to bar the entry of the cheaper chairs into your neighborhood? Or in a less extreme case, would you be willing to pay $20 a month to subsidies your neighbors wicker chair business, so he could afford to charge less for his chairs? Or perhaps you would simply tell the out of town chairmaker that if he wants to sell his chairs in your hood, hes got to pay a $50 tariff, or you and the neighborhood boys will rough him up?

Might it not be a better idea to allow the cheaper chairs to be traded for voluntarily between the out of towner and your neighbors? Sure, your neighbor might have to find new work, but everyone in your hood who buys chairs is now $50 richer, and they will spend that $50 on something else, and thus employ someone who makes patio furniture or garden gnomes or somesuch.

And if you did protect your neighbor from the consequences of his inability to make cheaper chairs, and as a result his more effecient out of town competition goes bankrupt? Havent you weeded the fitter and more able chair maker and protected artificially the less productive, the less effecient, the less sucessful? maker of chairs?

Do you see how rewarding inefficiency actually results in *less wealth* and is thus a net loss to the whole?

Yes, but you are assuming a global balance of trade. You are basing your argument that any given locale has, for one reason or another, efficiencies in production, that they can capitalize upon. They can then spend their profits on goods and services that are perhaps more efficiently produced in another locale. This is the fundamental argument in favor of globalism, that by funneling money into developing economies (by providing jobs to the local population), you thereby raise their standard of living to the point where they have the means to purchase goods and services from developed economies, resulting in a net win-win situation for all involved. While American outsourcing does indeed raise the standard of living in other countries, the loss of manufacturing in this country yields a net decrease in standard of living. Are we willing to accept a 70% decrease in our energy consumption per capita so that developing nations can double or triple theirs? As you can see from my comments, I tend to have protectionist tendencies. However in this global "economy", amongst the varied issues of monetary devaluation, and subsidized manufacturing, I don't think its a bad view to hold. In fact, I would probably say that more countries tend toward protectionism than globalism.

it's all about confidence, credit and taxes in my mind, and small business

big companies leaders are slaves to stock price, so they will lay people off to hit a number, so I think that is a waste of time.

small business is where it is at, but they don't see people spending, so they don't have the confidence to hire. the irony of course is if more people had jobs, there would be more spending ugh

the gov't very simply has to drastically reduce taxes on businesses, or even offer incentives for hiring, like if you can prove you hired a full time person, you get a tax break every week they are on the payroll. I would "pay for that" by hiring unemployed people to enforce currrent tax laws on the books. too many cheats out there and it hurts everybody. then I would go after welfare. you want money ? you gotta work for it unless you are so handicapped you can't even do data entry or sweep. Sorry if this offends, but if you make those folks work you'll knock lots of them off the teat. After that I'd go after the other big 3, military, SS and medicare. This country is in a big hole, and needs to look at all options.

the point is not drastic reductions or reforms, just squeeze better effeciency to cover the hiring incentives program

I'd even think about going through unemplyment files to look for folks who can work on infrastructure projects

this country is falling apart, and there are lots of people out of work. the gov't simply has to be able to match that

you know what's really depressing ? the last economy was built on home equity, and you see banks just trying to get back to that. did we learn nothing ?

Originally posted by CaptHowdy
Yes, but you are assuming a global balance of trade. You are basing your argument that any given locale has, for one reason or another, efficiencies in production, that they can capitalize upon. They can then spend their profits on goods and services that are perhaps more efficiently produced in another locale. This is the fundamental argument in favor of globalism, that by funneling money into developing economies (by providing jobs to the local population), you thereby raise their standard of living to the point where they have the means to purchase goods and services from developed economies, resulting in a net win-win situation for all involved. While American outsourcing does indeed raise the standard of living in other countries, the loss of manufacturing in this country yields a net decrease in standard of living. Are we willing to accept a 70% decrease in our energy consumption per capita so that developing nations can double or triple theirs? As you can see from my comments, I tend to have protectionist tendencies. However in this global "economy", amongst the varied issues of monetary devaluation, and subsidized manufacturing, I don't think its a bad view to hold. In fact, I would probably say that more countries tend toward protectionism than globalism.

Solid response, and while Im short on time I will say this. The catastrophic debt held by almost every country in the world, and specifically the US, can not be said to be, at its root, the result of less restrictive global trade. Instead the major factors, in my laymans opinion, are more likely the multigenerational inflation of fiat currency combined with a veracious welfare/warfare state, whos budget appetites are never satisfied. These parasitical entities are far more to blame for the abyss we teeter over than the millions of chinese and indian workers who have enjoyed the most massive rise out of poverty in history.

I dont think raising the shields against our mutual trading partners will deal with the fundamental problem that is the out of control state here at home.

Well, Neo, I agree with you 100% concerning the true issues that are devastating economies and even the fabric of our societies. The question I was trying to address with my first post, however, was that of the OP who was fishing for input on how to create jobs and repair our failing economy. I am still firmly of the opinion that we should set in place a structure that will incentivize US companies to utilize Americans as the primary human resource for production. Now whether that incentive comes in the form of tarriffs, tax breaks, presidential mandate or whatever, I am certainly open to ideas. If you reread the post, by the way, I was recommending action be taken concerning US companies producing goods offshore, then importing and selling them domestically. I made no mention of foriegn companies producing goods for sale in the American market, although I understand that once I used the word "protectionist", it tends to generate all sorts of images in ones head. btw, nice discourse.

Cut spending, cut taxes, dump the income tax code, for a sales tax, reduce regulations, more oil drilling in America.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Then what is your answer?

reply to post by David9176


Why not just crash the whole economic system and start over with a simple phone call
to George Soros?
I'm guessing he already has a plan to solve all our problems.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Why not just crash the whole economic system and start over with a simple phone call to George Soros? I'm guessing he already has a plan to solve all our problems.

Why don't you? I don't give a damn about george soros. You should love him...he has billions.

George soros has no more a right to buy off a politician than any other billionaire or transnational corporation.

You want to see a real crash? Continue slashing taxes for the wealthy while cutting programs that help the poor and middle class...while at the same time increasing their tax burden.

As I see it the answer is simple just do it, like minds group together and simple just do it.......this is the American way. People have good minds you need to work together.

One thing I want to post and this most likely is the wrong place but hey.....

The Government dosesn't stop... as I noticed years back they wanted to open territories for drilling but the peoples raised hell no don't mess up the wilderness the wildlife and so on. Well, hasn't it hit you what is going on in your world today they are creating chaos especially with oil so you will all turn around and say we need to drill here and that's all they wanted in the first place. WAKE UP

If one type of control doesn't work they regroup and come at it another way ........ that is what they are doing.

America is a great Nation and we as a people have to take it back from the Government and bring it back to the land that everyone admired.

How can we continue to allow them to do this to us the greatest Nation on this Planet.

Pull together and work together to do whatever you have to do to make you areas a better place and then help spread the goodness outward.

ps: All Countries people should be proud of their lands and the goal should be is take it back and make it the way it was meant to be.

We say God Bless America but in these times I believe the saying should be:

God bless Planet Earth

We are all Human Beings why do we let a few control so many.

Look within yourself and go by the old saying, treat others as you would want to be treated.

Originally posted by CaptHowdy
Well, Neo, I agree with you 100% concerning the true issues that are devastating economies and even the fabric of our societies. The question I was trying to address with my first post, however, was that of the OP who was fishing for input on how to create jobs and repair our failing economy. I am still firmly of the opinion that we should set in place a structure that will incentivize US companies to utilize Americans as the primary human resource for production. Now whether that incentive comes in the form of tarriffs, tax breaks, presidential mandate or whatever, I am certainly open to ideas. If you reread the post, by the way, I was recommending action be taken concerning US companies producing goods offshore, then importing and selling them domestically. I made no mention of foriegn companies producing goods for sale in the American market, although I understand that once I used the word "protectionist", it tends to generate all sorts of images in ones head. btw, nice discourse.

Nice discourse indeed! While I disagree with your solutions fundamentally, I appreciate your desire for us all to achieve prosperity in a fair and just manner.

Its just that I would argue that Statist intervention into the voluntary exchange between parties is the source, and not the solution to, our current collective unfolding economic catastrophe. State intervention = violent intervention, and since violence is ever escalating, no amount of reactionary violence can ever solve our problems. (as our problems are caused by violence itself, and thus no amount of additional violence can bring us positive and sustainable change.)

Its more about what we *dont do*, as opposed to what we do, imo.

Originally posted by SGTGerman
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

Then what is your answer?

If I was capable of answering that, you would have an excellent argument for Statist intervention, as if one person, or a group of persons, were/was capable of answering you, you should elect that person dictator as they would be capable of solving all of our complex social ills.

I dont know the solution, and I cannot know it. But I do know that violence is not a sustainable answer. The rest is up to you.

reply to post by David9176


Conventional wisdom is jacking up the price of housing will get us out this. Balancing the federal deficit would defiantly add a lot of stability to the market. There is a # load of money sitting in banks as cash and gold right now. people just need a stable environment to invest.

Originally posted by observe50
As I see it the answer is simple just do it, like minds group together and simple just do it.......this is the American way. People have good minds you need to work together.

Its up to us!

Reps. Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced bill, HR 2306 witch will allow industrial hemp to come back and i do believe threes a lot of pot heads out there. With the culture we have in this country hemp would flourish in the American economy.