Tell me...What would YOU do about this economic mess?

I'm not buying it. Without the ability to fail, there isn't capitalism. A new guy can't replace the old guy. On another thread someone asked me what I meant by producer controlled state socialism. I wish your post was on that thread, for this is a perfect example of it. Nothing worse than rich complaining workers failing is part of life but people of wealth failing is something to be worried about. I would have been standing in a soup line before any of you. With a smile on my face. It is capitalism for all, or none.

 

Of course I agree. Our nation was once totally debt free about 173 years ago. It has been very low at times in fairly recent history. Currently, We pay an ungodly amount of INTEREST on our bloated debt which now probably exceeds our GNP. That is not as bad as it seems but its still harmful. Its like a family making a 100K a year being 100K in debt.

We need to overhaul our income tax to the fair tax , and tie our currency to something valuable. There isn’t enough physical Gold to cover our currency. Laws should be made to disallow the printing of funny money when the new gold system is in place. We should begin to bring our manufacturing jobs back home and entice our population to buy made in the USA. If we could do all that we might be able to afford goods made the old-fashioned way by the USA instead of the disposable electronics etc now made in china. Oh yeah, as a preacher and thiest I would love to see chruch attendence increase. Hey if it is boring to you its a great way to network !

RevA

 

"This is where the problem lies. When our forefathers created the American system, it was the church who was the major contributor to corruption. Kings are ordained by God. Money wasn't as relative to power as title, the crown, or a pulpit. They exhausted themselves to make money king, as in those times money, from capitalism, was end all proof to someones efforts and worth. Now is the time to create a document, that while protecting an individuals right to make money, like the old still protected the right to believe in a higher power, money, like someone's belief, can have no say in politics whatsoever. The new stressed protection must be separation of money and state, like at one time was church and state.

Wealth, Church and the State must all be separate entities for a nation to function with all represented. A bought state has lead to EVERY problem, that combined, has gotten us where we are at. People should forever be able to make as much money as they possibly can while not threatening the rule of competition. However, even the suggestion of money involved in someone's politics should leave their candidacy forever moot. Like if someone suggests people's religious beliefs will play a part in their politics."

This was my response to another poster, in another thread. I felt it applied here. I hope all, even self proclaimed free marketeers read it, and allow it to sink in. It is the only way to save capitalism for generations to come. And truly abolish collectivism into the abyss of history.

 

You want to protect wealth the way religious freedom is protected? It will not happen IMO. However you could do as I have. I created a church and two non profit missions but not as a shelter. However its working out that way and its fair. I pay what I want and think I should the rest are expenses of the pastor.

RevA

Hey why is my cursor flashing and my font is being overwritten? Ha ha a hacker on PF?

 

People's right to make wealth, like people's right to be as religious as they want. Protecting people's wealth is what the bought state is already doing, and look how well it is working out. When wealth can do you no favors in politics, then we can talk about seriously limiting the governments right to tax even the smallest amounts.

 

The difference between YOU and those who are trying to manage the economic fallout is THEY cannot take action based on 'more than likely'.

You seem to have little idea how complex, how global, the US economy might be. And even with the US being the most powerful nation on Earth, our economy remains fragile.

BTW; I believe all of your evil banks have paid back their loans with interest...

 

Your analysis was the potential fallout of the US government doing nothing.

Many banks have failed and continue failing...about two per week I believe.

If the citizens/industry lose faith in the banking system, it's anyone's guess how bad it might become. Government intervention, no matter all the Monday-morning quarterbacking, was necessary...

 

Maybe you were watching NASCAR instead of the news when they showed huge banks failing on the front end and about two banks failing per week on the back end...there has been failure!

 

Alright then smart ass..the state picking who is allowed to fail isn't capitalism. Is that better? Apparently you were watching Broke Back Mountain instead of C-Span as car dealer after car dealer was being forced to close down by GM after their bailout, with little rhyme or reason in the decision process, some who every car on their lot was already paid for by the dealer. Just like Americans who fancy themselves socialists are anything but, the same can be said for those who call themselves capitalists. You are an elitist's errand boy, nothing more. A "do-what-your-told". Part of the problem, not the solution.

 

The state does not 'pick' which banks are allowed to fail or succeed. This is a Fed issue when the FDIC must get involved. It's not political. View the list of failed banks for yourself; http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Toyota is equal or larger than GM. Toyota has something like 3000 dealerships and GM had something like 12,000...can you see why GM needed to downsize?

So...I'm part of the problem because you don't have a good understanding of the issues and because YOU don't agree with me??

 

Fire the people responsible. If they will take the laws of the land to sustain their greed then first take back the law then take their lives.

 

We will probably go back to a bartering system. I remember a few years ago about a website that participates in barter...services for goods or vice versa

 

Yes! Like in the Roman Empire. The Legionaries would build roads when not fighting wars. It would be great. Except for the fact they most likely would have to deal with EM-385. If you have had to deal with the corp of engineers you know what this is... It makes OSHA look tame.

 

Identify anyone in Congress that is in the Tea Party Caucus (AKA extremist Republicans) and execute them. Problem solved.

 

More of that liberal civility I take it?

 

Two days ago, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban appeared on Piers Morgan Live. He provided a simple yet appropriate analysis of the political landscape in response to a question on his opinion of the Presidential field. His response to the question (this is paraphrased) was that no candidate currently has any policies to resolve our economic problems. What we are hearing is rhetoric, and every candidate doesn't have a clue of any comprehensive and specific "action items" to support it. He also stated that there is a complete lack of "transparency" in the Obama administration. Cuban is disappointed in Obama for not living up to his promise of transparent policy, and transparent politics.

Below is the link to the interview:

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/20...omy-and-transparency-cory-booker-on-bachmann/

Cuban is correct in his analysis. Our politicians have so much opportunity to be transparent, to be honest when developing policy, yet they never seize it. Furthermore, if they do seize it, they utilize rhetoric or dogma for policy. As an intelligent American, I don't want want the laws that I live under to be displayed through baseless rhetoric. I would rather listen to a 5 hour speech by a politician that utilizes an appropriate amount of rhetoric to compliment one-hundred well thought-out and specific proposals than a 20 minute speech with 18 minutes of rhetoric and 2 minutes of vague proposals. The preceding option is what this country needs from a politician.

 

If we had more presidents like Bill Clinton, we'd be out of this mess in a hurry.

 

Bill Clinton was not a rhetoric freak like every current Presidential candidate and politician. He only relied on political rhetoric when it was appropriate, but explained his policies in a more transparent manner, and developed more comprehensive and specific policies.

 

This makes sense to me. But I am not an economist.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

 

We'd all be speaking Mandarin by now.

 

Seems to me that Newt Gingrich is responsible for that which you would attribute to Clinton.

 

Taking away corporate income tax would make American goods cheaper, both here and abroad. It would also make companies come back to America with their corporate incomes. Also, fundamentally, any corporate income tax is just part of the price we pay for goods. It's not really taking away from the corporation, but from the consumer.

 

Corporate taxes should not be targeting income that is disinterested and goes towards investment in the company, the economy, and allows the price of goods to decrease. What corporate taxes should do is target self-interested and risky investments that do not translate to positive investment in a company and the economy. This will require a break-up of the divide between capital gains and income taxes.

 

Maybe at a local level you can do some bartering, but I cannot imagine how this works in complex financial dealings and international trade...

 

Why would we?