But employers are seeking cheaper labor. That, of course, is why they have moved so much manufacturing overseas. And better education and training will put upward pressure on wages. The "powers that be" seem to have decided they don't need an educated public and that is why we have all the problems we have in education. -in spite of low interest rates all this time plus the high level of cash on hand retained by corporations. Job creation is a problem now. Job creation presupposes either increased innovation and new products, or an increase in existing production. But with median real wages being flat for 30-40 years and lagging so far behind now, increased consumption of new products of innovation would be a problem, and regarding any increase in existing production, the current capacity utilization was around 78% last time I checked, so manufacturing is unable to sell all they have the capacity to produce as it is. And therefore increasing production would be pointless, and that's why they don't. Are those two related? Healthcare needs a complete reset. BIG ethical issues. How? Sounds impossible. Seems to me we would do better to analyze the economy and grasp the issues, and devise an economic system that solves and prevents those problems. And then there is the perennial question about your suggestions: who is going to do it? Our current government at any level won't. There's a reason they haven't.
Look at the US and Europe. Almost all of their population growth is coming from outside their country.
You have some interesting ideas. Here are mine: Drastically cut regulations. Regulations cost us trillions every year. Roll up almost all taxes into a simple income tax on the state, federal, and local level. This will save us hundreds of billions in tax preparations every year. Eliminate taxes for most businesses. This will help small businesses compete against large corporations and help generate jobs. Cut the debt. Eliminate the deficit and better regulate the amount of credit card and student debt people can take on. We are tens of trillions of dollars in debt and this has to stop. Drastically cut government spending by chopping down military spending, eliminating welfare spending, and thousands of government programs that aren't useful and most of the 10% of the people employed by the government. Replace social security with taxpayer funded expanded 401K to get people investing with a flat tax rate (including the rich). Also increase the company contribution requirements into 401Ks. Require 60 votes for any bill that raises the deficit, taxes, or regulations more than it reduces them. Reduce income inequality. Maintain income inequality at 1950s levels by progressive taxes on the rich to fund education, science, retirement, and healthcare. Add time-and-a-half pay. All hours over 40 hours should require time-and-a-half pay. This will mean companies will need to hire more people and unemployment will be lower. This will also need to be increased if computers start taking millions of human jobs. Adopt a universal healthcare system. We pay 2 1/2 times as much as other countries do for healthcare. Doing this will save us trillions. Tax junk good to reduce healthcare costs, make prices transparent to increase competition, and have government price bargaining with healthcare companies. Proper regulate markets that hurt workers. Healthcare, utilities, and housing are all markets that result in massive cost increases on Americans and need to be properly regulated and addressed to ensure good competition, no monopolies, lower prices. Make sure that economic crashes are small and rare. Raise standards in schools and teach financial management, entrepreneurship and a work ethic and add private school vouchers to increase quality and competition. Only fund in-demand careers in college and provide low-interest loans. We have a 5.7 million jobs skills gap and too much student debt. Invest more in science and economic research and technology. Focus on researching the impact of political policies, clean energy, software, robots, and genetic engineering to improve human DNA. Address global warming and don't over-consume. Hurting the planet and over-consuming will come back to bite. Time to stop. Cut the population. Population rise fuels price rises and lower standards of living. Make abortion and all forms of birth control free planet-wide. Only allow high skilled immigrants in the country and remove anyone not meeting this requirement. Reduce the trade deficit to near zero to protect jobs at home.
I believe that regulations serve a good purpose in mantaining quality products. When consumers are confident their products are safe, then they are more likely to buy freely, and can better judge products by price rather than having to worry about basic safety. Also regulations in the stock market and the environment especially protect our society from selfish behavior from businesses. My point is that we have hundreds of thousands of regulations and add tens of thousands of regulations every year. Its ok to have rules, but when they just sort of get piled on each other year after year, it just creates a red tape nightmare and make them less enforcable and less effective. I think the government not only needs to add regulations but also weed out old ones that aren't helpful and reorganize other existing regulations together.
Is 'we' America? The US has very weak regulation. See, for example, health and safety. One sticking point over trade liberalisation with European countries is that the US has insufficient food regulations.
Yes, our regulations are often ineffective. But the solution isn't to pile on more heaps of regulations, but to take our existing regulations and throw out the garbage, and then add the new ones. For example, the US is famous for our gun violence, and how ineffective our regulations are at stopping it. Yet we have 20,000 gun laws.
Any evidence that you have 'more' regulations than anyone else? Gun control also seems a wonky choice. "We have more gun regulations than Britain" would have the neighbouring sub-forum up in arms!
That quote of 'more regulations than anyone else' isn't from me because I never said that. What I am saying is that we have too many regulations and they aren't effective. Just have fewer more effective regulations in fewer words. 20,000 laws is ridiculous and impossible to keep track of and completely enforce. If someone gave me a essay with 20,000 laws to fix gun violence, I'd give him a word limit and ask him to simplify his essay.
The ineffectiveness of gin regulation reflects watering down to meet demands of the hoplophiles. You get the same with more general regulations. Free market economics is largely a sham and you only get regulations which maintain a big business status quo.
Hard not to get/be captured. Most people in government roles to craft legislation, particularly for complex financial instruments (or any new technology really), simply don't have the knowledge, so to rectify this they turn to the industries that craft these complex financial instruments to come up with legislation to regulate them. I'm more inclined to have faith in trade organization or private third party ratings groups than government in areas where bureaucrats are going to have to lean on the industry anyway. Of course, this isn't an argument against regulation, but rather who is best to figure out what that regulation should be in a way that doesn't so obviously lead to capture.
Using Galbraith, the technosphere replaces the entrepreneur. And we then have to refer to the fellows populating that technosphere and how that breaks down divides between private and public sectors. Here, for example, our senior civil servants, politicians and financial elite all have gone to the same schools, drink at the same clubs and are on luvvie terms. Not surprisingly, the status quo politics isn't particularly friendly to the proper delivery of public goods to Joe Pleb.
I'm having a hard time establishing the link between today's technocrats and the entrenched interests on capitol hill. I don't think any members of either house have been spending very much time in silicon valley, that was made painfully obvious watching the geriatric crew try to question the internet billionaire. They had neither the understand nor the language to even make the charade meaningful. For the last point, the ROI for public good provision is substantially lower than having industry backing come campaign time.
Idiocy of politician is a given, but its a selective idiocy. Look at, for example, how many of them maintained their global warming denial until it became too much to stomach. Keynes referred to how people are slaves to defunct economists. He just missed out how senior civil servants, and their nature affinity with big business management, diffused that slavery.
A particularly weak effort. You're referring to how fascism has no economic spine. The best you can refer to is Pareto, but he was obsessed with a nonsensical view over elitism.
Sounds like you are making excuses for this debacle and trying to be creative as to a way to keep the rich growing their wealth while putting out another (we could try) this or that and heaven will rain down on us. We have to go back to the 1970 - 80 (1935-1985) tax bases to equal out income. Outside of that, you are going to have VERY rich and very Poor. Who woulda thunk FDR and his admin. had the answer, only ones that hated him were the Jews. They let it be known. Read quotes from them...
Nope. I'm trying to get through to you that deriving cliche won't work! To critique my post you have to suggest that fascism does have an economic spine. Good luck!
