How do we fix the economy???

Yet more polling/exit polling data.

- Only two of 10 voters trust government to do what's right most of the time

- Half expect the lives of the next generation to be worse

- Eight in 10 voters worry about the direction of the economy in the next year.

- Seven in 10 voters say the economy is either "not so good" or "poor."

- Two thirds of voters say the U.S economic system is unfair to most Americans

- Almost two-thirds of voters said the nation was off on the wrong track

As usual the polls are published as basically - do something about the problem. Nothing but the usual from the politicians (The Republicans want to cut taxes. The Democrats want to spend money we don't have.)

More transparency on some things would help in tracking how the money is spent. There's too many pet pork projects by politicians. Get money for infrastructure remain/improvement, and have people tracking that the money is actually spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements and not on other things by the federal/state governments. The first and second spending stimulus were complete boondoggles. 'Shovel ready jobs' my butt. A huge amount of that money was used by states to cover budget shortfalls, not spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements. Get the roads and bridges, railroads, rivers(canals and locks) and airports fixed and new ones built where needed. Get the information networks (internet) improved if need be.

Get a reasonable tax structure (hard to do since everyone has a different idea) and do -not- put the burden on the rich. They bear enough of it as it is, 10% is paying well over 50%, closer to 80% of all federal income tax. Corporate and personal tax structure. Give tax breaks for companies that do R&D in the US.

Rein in the bureaucracies and have sensible regulations. Ones -not- driven by ideologies, political or otherwise. Something that will help keep people/environment as clean as reasonable and foster a good business environment.

Cut all lobbyist gifts. I'd prefer to cut all lobbying organizations. Cut it out entirely. Lobbyists and the companies and organizations they represent cannot give any gifts, benefits or job offers for the government officials. There's a bunch of other things, but this is my basis for trying to improve the economy.

Zakharra wrote:More transparency on some things would help in tracking how the money is spent. There's too many pet pork projects by politicians.

Size is also a factor here. It's really easy to slip in a billion here, a billion there into a budget that large.

Get money for infrastructure remain/improvement, and have people tracking that the money is actually spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements and not on other things by the federal/state governments. The first and second spending stimulus were complete boondoggles. 'Shovel ready jobs' my butt. A huge amount of that money was used by states to cover budget shortfalls, not spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements. Get the roads and bridges, railroads, rivers(canals and locks) and airports fixed and new ones built where needed. Get the information networks (internet) improved if need be.

Yeah. The Democrats have pretty much killed any support they had for government spending as stimulus with their disastrous misuse of the funds. We basically borrowed a couple of trillion from the Chinese for them to waste. People wouldn't have minded borrowing the money if it had been invested properly instead of wasted.

The criteria should have been not just give money to those who contributed to your campaign but that projects should have been infrastructure with a multiplier effect. For example, building a new road in an underserved area enables entrepreneurs to get more widgets to market, providing not just temporary employment to road construction workers but indirectly providing permanent employment to employees of the entrepreneurs. That would ensure that the roads, bridges, canals, locks, airports, information networks, etc would be built where needed the most. (Power and water would be good to add to the list, those are in serious need of overhaul.)

Plus projects should have been vetted by people who knew what they were doing before getting money i.e. politicians and their friends shouldn't be doing it. Hire a successful venture capital firm or two, they know how to vet projects quickly and effectively. (Be sure a really good contract lawyer writes the contract with the venture firm(s) though.)

It's theoretical in any case as the taxpayer's will never give them money for stimulus again. Their attitude is sort of like the attitude you'd have after loaning money to your relative with a gambling problem that they promised to use on rent but instead gambled away and is now asking for more money.

Get a reasonable tax structure (hard to do since everyone has a different idea) and do -not- put the burden on the rich. They bear enough of it as it is, 10% is paying well over 50%, closer to 80% of all federal income tax. Corporate and personal tax structure. Give tax breaks for companies that do R&D in the US.

That would be really nice. I like a flat tax with a floor and minimal exemptions/deductions myself.

Rein in the bureaucracies and have sensible regulations. Ones -not- driven by ideologies, political or otherwise. Something that will help keep people/environment as clean as reasonable and foster a good business environment.

Easier said than done. But I'd like to see congress spend half their time on unmaking laws/regulations, instead of making new ones.

Cut all lobbyist gifts. I'd prefer to cut all lobbying organizations. Cut it out entirely. Lobbyists and the companies and organizations they represent cannot give any gifts, benefits or job offers for the government officials. There's a bunch of other things, but this is my basis for trying to improve the economy.

It'd work for the short term, probably long enough to see us through this current crisis. But then the lobbyists etc would come up with new tricks not covered in the old regulations.

biochem wrote:

Zakharra wrote:More transparency on some things would help in tracking how the money is spent. There's too many pet pork projects by politicians.

Size is also a factor here. It's really easy to slip in a billion here, a billion there into a budget that large.

Get money for infrastructure remain/improvement, and have people tracking that the money is actually spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements and not on other things by the federal/state governments. The first and second spending stimulus were complete boondoggles. 'Shovel ready jobs' my butt. A huge amount of that money was used by states to cover budget shortfalls, not spent on infrastructure repairs/improvements. Get the roads and bridges, railroads, rivers(canals and locks) and airports fixed and new ones built where needed. Get the information networks (internet) improved if need be.

Yeah. The Democrats have pretty much killed any support they had for government spending as stimulus with their disastrous misuse of the funds. We basically borrowed a couple of trillion from the Chinese for them to waste. People wouldn't have minded borrowing the money if it had been invested properly instead of wasted.

The criteria should have been not just give money to those who contributed to your campaign but that projects should have been infrastructure with a multiplier effect. For example, building a new road in an underserved area enables entrepreneurs to get more widgets to market, providing not just temporary employment to road construction workers but indirectly providing permanent employment to employees of the entrepreneurs. That would ensure that the roads, bridges, canals, locks, airports, information networks, etc would be built where needed the most. (Power and water would be good to add to the list, those are in serious need of overhaul.)

Plus projects should have been vetted by people who knew what they were doing before getting money i.e. politicians and their friends shouldn't be doing it. Hire a successful venture capital firm or two, they know how to vet projects quickly and effectively. (Be sure a really good contract lawyer writes the contract with the venture firm(s) though.)

It's theoretical in any case as the taxpayer's will never give them money for stimulus again. Their attitude is sort of like the attitude you'd have after loaning money to your relative with a gambling problem that they promised to use on rent but instead gambled away and is now asking for more money.

Get a reasonable tax structure (hard to do since everyone has a different idea) and do -not- put the burden on the rich. They bear enough of it as it is, 10% is paying well over 50%, closer to 80% of all federal income tax. Corporate and personal tax structure. Give tax breaks for companies that do R&D in the US.

That would be really nice. I like a flat tax with a floor and minimal exemptions/deductions myself.

Rein in the bureaucracies and have sensible regulations. Ones -not- driven by ideologies, political or otherwise. Something that will help keep people/environment as clean as reasonable and foster a good business environment.

Easier said than done. But I'd like to see congress spend half their time on unmaking laws/regulations, instead of making new ones.

Cut all lobbyist gifts. I'd prefer to cut all lobbying organizations. Cut it out entirely. Lobbyists and the companies and organizations they represent cannot give any gifts, benefits or job offers for the government officials. There's a bunch of other things, but this is my basis for trying to improve the economy.

It'd work for the short term, probably long enough to see us through this current crisis. But then the lobbyists etc would come up with new tricks not covered in the old regulations.

I can't disagree with most of this. The flat tax might not work as well as hoped, but I believe more citizens should be paying a income tax rather than the 50% of adult citizens that aren't paying income tax now. The corporate tax structure needs to be overhauled a bit though. The R&D tax breaks I mentioned, and to get rid of subsidies for corporations that are clearly making profits such as oil/gas companies above a certain size, and other corporations that make profits. Let the corps keep the majority of their profits (keeping money in the businesses for reinvestment(the smart owners do that, payroll and other needs the company has, as well as paying off investors/shareholders).

One thing that would help the West is get most of the land into the hands of those states. Currently the largest land owner in the states west of the Rockies is the US federal government. Something like 70-80% of the land is under the control of the Federal government. Almost all of Nevada, Idaho, Utah (over 9-0%) and Arizona New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Oregon (over 50%), and Washington, Montana and California are around 50% or less. The states east of the Rocky Mountains have, at the most 20% or less (most under 10%) of their land under federal control. When those states became states, the land in them was transferred from federal control to the new state. But for some reason in the west, the land was never transferred to state control. Freeing up that land to the states would open up a LOT of economic opportunity (environmentalists be damned). States should have control over the land in their state. Not the federal government. The land would let economies expand and grow with the increase in minerals being allowed to be accesses, forests could be properly managed for wood products and to help clean out dead and diseased and bug riddled wood among things. There's all sorts of ways this could benefit the citizens of the states and economies, which means more money for citizens and the governments through taxes and such.

I think more laws could be added to keep the lobbyists from going around existing and yet to be written laws.

Zakharra wrote: I think more laws could be added to keep the lobbyists from going around existing and yet to be written laws.

The basic problem is that the ones who enlarge their position, instead of working to do their job, tend to take over an organization. A little more ethics could help also. This may be why the big shots get so upset at the idea that sin exists

This competition among legal regimes is a powerful constraint on government—and that is a good thing for all of us.

From:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... s-n1922698

Its odd, the big shots don't like competition that cuts their unearned income. Doesn't seem to matter what kind of big shots they are either, except for the rare bird who wants to do the job they are supposed to do. Look up Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy.

Before the economy can be fixed we have to get out of the "the universe revolves around me" mentality. Failure has so little consequence. From the banks that make risky loans and are bailed out to the high school dropout that knows he will always have food to eat and a roof over his head thanks to welfare programs.

bigrunt wrote:Before the economy can be fixed we have to get out of the "the universe revolves around me" mentality. Failure has so little consequence. From the banks that make risky loans and are bailed out

The big problem with the banks that made the risky loans was the distance between the loan originator and the loan holder. A loan would be made, then bundled with similar loans and then resold and resold again. A big problem with these loans was insufficient due diligence at the origin. All the originating banker had to do was make it look good not make it be good (after all they weren't going to be stuck with the bill if it failed, someone 5 or 6 buyers down the line would be stuck with it.) In response to the loan disaster, the Feds piled tons of new requirements onto the banks, creating a huge compliance burden and damaging the ability of all banks to lend (not just the banks which were the problems). Rather than tie bankers hands with all of this micromanagement, they should have made a simple regulatory change: require the originating bank to have skin in the game. Make them liable for 20% of the costs if the loan fails and watch how fast they get good at due diligence.

to the high school dropout that knows he will always have food to eat and a roof over his head thanks to welfare programs.

We do need another round of Clinton style welfare reform. However, the kick them off of welfare and force them to get a job route, which worked well for Clinton won't work today because there are no jobs for them to get with this lousy economy. But when the economy recovers (I'm being optimistic and assuming it will eventually), we need to significantly reduce the welfare rolls.

And well we're at it we need to do something about the ever increasing number of people on disability. Most of them CANNOT work a regular job but most of them aren't quadriplegics either and can do something. We need to arrange for them to do something to earn their disability checks. Something appropriate to their physical and/or mental condition that lets them earn their check and feel useful again. I would suggest partnering with local nonprofits and setting up pilot programs to get the bugs out before trying anything large scale.

To prevent the "lots and lots of laws" syndrome that stifles countries, the following method could be used.
1) Count the number of laws currently in use. Set that as maximum number of laws allowable.
2) For each law that is amended, one law must be struck from the books.
3) For each law proposed, two laws must be struck from the books.
4) No new law to be over 800 words.
5) When a new law is passed, the originator/author must resign from politics and never return.
6) When a law is amended, the one who proposed the amendment must resign from politics for at least one election cycle.
7) If a law is proposed, passed and then within two years either proves unworkable or needs to be struck off due to consequences that the author did not foresee, the author is to be jailed for four years.
8) Do a similar thing for the civil service and their regulations.

By doing this, companies can plan ahead better and the government will slowly become less of a drag on the economy while streamlining its own processes. Eventually, a happy medium should be reached where the law is streamlined enough that it is easily understandable and difficult to twist via loopholes.

Seemples.

Michael Everett wrote:1) Count the number of laws currently in use. Set that as maximum number of laws allowable.

Because it is simply inconceivable that new laws may be needed.

2) For each law that is amended, one law must be struck from the books.

Just imagine, after a few years of this, we'll actually have to strike useful laws from the books that have for far too long impeded <insert interest group with lobbying money here>!

3) For each law proposed, two laws must be struck from the books.

See above. Who needs laws?

4) No new law to be over 800 words.

Because we all know that nothing in real life is ever complicated or may require a certain amount of verbiage to explain.
Conversely, we know that laws limited to a certain word count will never ever be misinterpreted! It's a win-win situation (In magical opposite land, where anarchy is a good thing, rules lawyers are respected above all other professions, and noone would ever even think about malicious use of language)!

5) When a new law is passed, the originator/author must resign from politics and never return.

Right. Sure. Look, if you want to keep your legislative clueless and in constant flux, go ahead. But don't expect that to be an improvement over anything.

6) When a law is amended, the one who proposed the amendment must resign from politics for at least one election cycle.

Why?

7) If a law is proposed, passed and then within two years either proves unworkable or needs to be struck off due to consequences that the author did not foresee, the author is to be jailed for four years.
8) Do a similar thing for the civil service and their regulations.

And here we come to the pure bullshit. Can you write up a statute that explains what "unworkable" or "unforeseen consequence" means in 800 words? One that does what you want this idiocy to do, but does allow for enough leeway so that actual lawmaking can happen?

By doing this, companies can plan ahead better and the government will slowly become less of a drag on the economy while streamlining its own processes. Eventually, a happy medium should be reached where the law is streamlined enough that it is easily understandable and difficult to twist via loopholes.

And as we all know, what is good for sociopathic aliens* is good for society. Because companies have such strong incentives to be positive influences in a society, and not just parasites.


*AKA "companies"

[quote="biochem"
Rather than tie bankers hands with all of this micromanagement, they should have made a simple regulatory change: require the originating bank to have skin in the game. Make them liable for 20% of the costs if the loan fails and watch how fast they get good at due diligence.

. . ..

We do need another round of Clinton style welfare reform. However, the kick them off of welfare and force them to get a job route, which worked well for Clinton won't work today because there are no jobs for them to get with this lousy economy. [/quote]

As to the bankers: yes Choices have consequences, and attempting to hide this just gets people blind-sided.

As to the no jobs: About five or six decades ago, a science fiction story "The Darfstellar" (author forgotten, in Astounding) addressed this. Besides the general plot, one sentence has stuck - "The only job that can't be automated out from under you is that of devising new jobs." When laid off in '03, BJ & I:

1) enlarged the garden. To those living in the cities, read "Fresh food from small spaces." by R. J. Ruppenthal.

2) took any honest work we could find. It still left us too much spare time, but so what.

3) drew down savings we had made before. It wouldn't hurt to review Aesop's story of the ant and the grasshopper.

At my age, it is "The only job that can't be retired . . .." but we are following the same principles. Hopefully, the saving's value won't be inflated out from under us At least there have been no debts for about two decades.


http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... s-n1956266

Christian and Robbins look specifically at the direct and indirect costs of the income tax.

Worth reading.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... ampaign=nl

Graham proposes that instead of Medicare doing competitive bidding, let medicare recipients shop for services then reward them by adding a portion of the savings to their monthly Social Security deposits.

I like this one. It would be nice to have at least one way we could get paid for work done for the feds.

http://personalliberty.com/organizing-tyranny/

The universal vision is right in front of our faces and always has been: to break away from the corrupt mainstream system, to remove our dependency, to provide our own necessities and, thus, to remove our consent.

This one has obvious cross-overs to the sustainablist . . .. and extractive . . .. threads.