Unemployment lowest since 2008 (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I did change the title.

When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)

Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.

Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

 

[Chadstroma]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

Wasn't the previous subtitle something like 'good news for Obama'? and now with the change of the title it is 'let's not get in the blame game'.... I find that humorous.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

if someone can help me figure out how to raise 400k I could probably employ about 30 people right now and make it 300 by this time next year. Banks won't help even though I have the contracts locked up. It's ridiculous out here!!

 

[timschochet]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

Wasn't the previous subtitle something like 'good news for Obama'? and now with the change of the title it is 'let's not get in the blame game'.... I find that humorous.

No. It would be ironic if I wrote that I gave credit to Obama. I never did. From the beginning, I made the point that while it was "good news" for Obama, it was not something that he was responsible for.

 

[Novice2]

Forget blame; what should we do?

Give tax breaks to the rich to create min wage jobs for illegal immigrants.

 

[Sarnoff]

Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

Eat the poor.

 

[Chadstroma]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

Wasn't the previous subtitle something like 'good news for Obama'? and now with the change of the title it is 'let's not get in the blame game'.... I find that humorous.

No. It would be ironic if I wrote that I gave credit to Obama. I never did. From the beginning, I made the point that while it was "good news" for Obama, it was not something that he was responsible for.

Whether you meant to or not, it has the air of spin. I don't see you are being a partisan guy so I don't really think you meant it like that but one is 'hey, good news for Obama!' and the other is 'uh, let's not go around and start blaming people here'.

 

[jon_mx]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

If we still had $800 billion to spend on incentives to create real jobs, we could wipe out unemployment rather quickly. Unfortunately, we spent it on other stuff.

 

[Novice2]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread ( good news/this helps Obama ) I was hopeful that things were getting better. Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. so Forget blame; what should we do?

fixed

 

[guderian]

The economy is driven by consumer demand which is in turn driving by job growth which is driven by business investment which is driven by confidence in the economic outlook. A good chunk of job growth typically comes from small businesses. Do you think they've figured out how the 5,000 pages of new laws are going to affect they bottom-line?

Also, we have a deficit that isn't close to sustainable. Businesses know that and they know that means that the government's budget and tax policies will have to change--either that or we're going to push ourselves into a Japanese style lost decade with debt well over 100% of GDP and 1-2% economic growth at best. How can you have confidence in the economic outlook when you don't know what tax, spending and regulatory policies will be? I've been saying this for a very long time--the best thing that can happen to the economy is a credible plan to reduce the deficit to a sustainable 3-5% of GDP. That means we have to cut the deficit to ~$500 B from $1.5 T. We don't have to cut that back tomorrow, but it has to be a credible plan--no "planning to cut expenses that we know we're going to vote back in" or back-end loaded plans that just kick the can down the road. Let's split the difference on the Bush Tax Cuts, cut discretionary spending to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation, do another round of military base closures and such, and do all the tweaks to SS and other entitlements that have been discussed.

By the way, if we cut the deficit by $1 trillion that will free up $1 trillion of capital for other uses that the government was expected to borrow.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/job-participation/2011/03/29/gIQAuUjK2I_blog.html

The White House and much of the chattering class cooed on Friday when unemployment dropped to 9.1 percent and 117,000 jobs were reportedly created in July. But these numbers, upon closer inspection, show no progress on the jobs front.

Buried in the job stats was a number — 193,000 — that dwarfed all the rest. That is the number of workers who left the job market. If 193,000 left and only 117,000 jobs were added, we lost 76,000 jobs. Moreover, this is not an aberration.

When President Obama took office in January of 2009, the labor participation rate was 65.7 percent. Now, “The labor force participation rate is currently 63.9 percent. That is the lowest level since 1984,” says Matt McDonald, a communications and business strategist who previously worked in the Bush administration. “If the labor force participation rate today were 65.7 percent, there would be an additional 4.2 million people in the workforce.” In that case, the unemployment rate would be 11.5 percent not 9.1 percent.

 

[timschochet]

It's going to get worse, isn't it? No way that the stock market can drop this much without more jobs being lost...

 

[Anthony Borbely]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

 

[jonessed]

We should streamline regulations for small businesses. That's where the jobs are and that's where the job growth that propels us out of this will come from.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I did change the title.When I originally stated this thread I was hopeful that things were getting better. I also wanted to make the political point that it would likely help Obama (at the time, I projected it would help him in the 2010 midterms.)Obviously, things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse, and this latest month continues the pain. Is Obama to blame? Maybe. Are the Republicans to blame? Maybe. The truth is, I'm weary of arguing about whose to blame, because it simply degenerates into partisan rhetoric and I really don't the #### know.Here's the question: what do we do now? What can we do? How can we get things moving again?

If we still had $800 billion to spend on incentives to create real jobs, we could wipe out unemployment rather quickly. Unfortunately, we spent it on other stuff.

So tax cuts = spending now? Can I get you to officially agree that's your position?

 

[dickey moe]

Are Tax Cuts the Final Bullet?

 

[dickey moe]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

That's a good question. One place to start is by dealing with trade issues. Time to crack down on things like currency manipulation. We are getting screwed by trade. Other countries can sell stuff here, but not the other way around? #### that noise. There needs to be some way to make it feasible for companies to keep jobs here. It should not be profitable for companies to send jobs overseas. It should be profitable to keep jobs here.

 

[FavreCo]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

Won't happen until the wages in this country drop to meet the wages of the countries currently making what we used to make. What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

 

[dickey moe]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

That's a good question. One place to start is by dealing with trade issues. Time to crack down on things like currency manipulation. We are getting screwed by trade. Other countries can sell stuff here, but not the other way around? #### that noise. There needs to be some way to make it feasible for companies to keep jobs here. It should not be profitable for companies to send jobs overseas. It should be profitable to keep jobs here.

I agree with this.

Won't happen until the wages in this country drop to meet the wages of the countries currently making what we used to make.

This is likely the case. Global wages are going to need to reach some sort of equilibrium

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

This seems like a very expensive way to artificially create demand.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's going to get worse, isn't it? No way that the stock market can drop this much without more jobs being lost...

I liked this thread better when you still had your head in the sand and the titled proclaimed unemployment decreasing.

 

[Sarnoff]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

We still make lots of things. IIRC, we're one of the top producers worldwide of private jets. What we need is a President to encourage people to buy what we make.... oh, wait...

 

[Rich Conway]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

FairTax

 

[Sam Quentin]

I guess we didn't spend enough...

 

[Rich Conway]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

 

[Gr00vus]

I guess we didn't spend enough...

But I bought lunch today instead of brown bagging it!

 

[FavreCo]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

 

[Rich Conway]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Even so, paying people to destroy them is kind of like paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. It doesn't improve the economy.

 

[FavreCo]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Even so, paying people to destroy them is kind of like paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. It doesn't improve the economy.

Not in the short term but it will get things moving faster in the long run. Otherwise, we are looking at a long time before the inventory is absorbed. A very long time.

 

[humpback]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Even so, paying people to destroy them is kind of like paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. It doesn't improve the economy.

It's not quite the same thing IMO. Most people don't want to live in or near an area with a lot of vacant homes. If you tear them down and replace them with something that people do want to be near (such as a park), it can draw people back into the community, which helps the economy. Also, it does help the supply/demand equation, and provides some jobs in the meantime.I doubt it will ever happen, but I can definitely think of worse things to waste money on.

 

[kupcho1]

One place to start is by dealing with trade issues. Time to crack down on things like currency manipulation. We are getting screwed by trade. Other countries can sell stuff here, but not the other way around? #### that noise.

Aren't we (the US) keeping the dollar weak to spur exports? Are we not guilty of exactly what you're talking about wrt currency manipulation?

 

[The Ref]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

. Step one : deflation. Financial services companies go out by the dozen. Thousands lose jobs. Dollar gets stronger. Goods cost less including gas and labor.Step two : restructure. The few of us with capital realize that it's cheap to make stuff here with low input costs. Thats the dummy version. Things get bad then they get better.

 

[DrJ]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

American citizens start placing a higher priority on buying things made here, even if it amounts in them being able to buy less stuff. All business guy wants to do is make a buck, he'll sell you anything you want to buy. If we weren't placing our highest priority on price alone, more people would make stuff here.You can't get a $500 computer and have it be made here, and have your support calls routed here. So how willing are you to spend more to create an American job, have a PC that breaks less, and get a more enjoyable support experience? I'm guessing the answer is not very willing, or more stuff would be made here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Could this be finally true? Not in the US, but globally?

Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: 'the micro-chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour. As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and work-based society is thrown into crisis...

--André Gorz, Critique of economic Reason, Gallile, 1989

What if it is? How would we adapt? Could we adapt?(Even if you don't think it is ever possible to be true, can you imagine the ramifications?)

 

[jonessed]

Could this be finally true? Not in the US, but globally?

Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: 'the micro-chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour. As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and work-based society is thrown into crisis...

--André Gorz, Critique of economic Reason, Gallile, 1989

What if it is? How would we adapt? Could we adapt?(Even if you don't think it is ever possible to be true, can you imagine the ramifications?)

There are always technological advances that reduce the need for labor. That just leaves more labor to do something else. That's why having a system that allows for the creation and expansion of new businesses is so important.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.



1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done.

2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses.

3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work.

4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability.

5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside.

6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes?

7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

 

[bueno]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

That's a good question. One place to start is by dealing with trade issues. Time to crack down on things like currency manipulation. We are getting screwed by trade. Other countries can sell stuff here, but not the other way around? #### that noise. There needs to be some way to make it feasible for companies to keep jobs here. It should not be profitable for companies to send jobs overseas. It should be profitable to keep jobs here.

There is, but it would look like corporate welfare to you.

 

[bueno]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Even so, paying people to destroy them is kind of like paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. It doesn't improve the economy.

Not in the short term but it will get things moving faster in the long run. Otherwise, we are looking at a long time before the inventory is absorbed. A very long time.

How about the government gets out of the way and we let the market hit bottom?

 

[DrJ]

Could this be finally true? Not in the US, but globally?

Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: 'the micro-chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour. As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and work-based society is thrown into crisis...

--André Gorz, Critique of economic Reason, Gallile, 1989

What if it is? How would we adapt? Could we adapt?(Even if you don't think it is ever possible to be true, can you imagine the ramifications?)

There are always technological advances that reduce the need for labor. That just leaves more labor to do something else. That's why having a system that allows for the creation and expansion of new businesses is so important.

Problem today though is the rate at which technology is advancing. It's something that typically happened more incrementally over generations. It makes it more difficult to expand new business at the rate that is needed and requires more agility from the work force. Maybe the way we look at education is a bit outdated. In technical circles, you have a lot of certification programs that can serve to demonstrate knowledge in areas, are entirely relevant to a given field rather than having a lot of fluff that you would never use again, and can be quickly obtained. They also expire, so you are required to keep your skills current to maintain them. Maybe this is a model that would serve our country better rather than "so, you graduated from Rutgers in 1972"...

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

We could do like the Brits and burn #### down, take the insurance money and rebuild. That'll create jobs.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

This country needs to start making things again. Without that, I don't see how this situation improves.

What would be the best way to get this country to start making things again?

That's a good question. One place to start is by dealing with trade issues. Time to crack down on things like currency manipulation. We are getting screwed by trade. Other countries can sell stuff here, but not the other way around? #### that noise. There needs to be some way to make it feasible for companies to keep jobs here. It should not be profitable for companies to send jobs overseas. It should be profitable to keep jobs here.

There is, but it would look like corporate welfare to you.

If you are talking about more tax cuts for corporations that are already sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, then you would be correct. I'm not interested in tax cuts to line their pockets even more.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.



1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done.

2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses.

3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work.

4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability.

5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside.

6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes?

7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

I don't know where you cut and pasted this from since you never provide links (which you should do), but this would not do anything to help anyone except those at the top.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.



1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done.

2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses.

3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work.

4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability.

5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside.

6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes?

7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

I don't know where you cut and pasted this from since you never provide links (which you should do), but this would not do anything to help anyone except those at the top.

Do you own a business? I know I am not at the top and a few of these would help me and my small companies.

 

[Rayderr]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Not true. The banks just need to make it easier to buy the homes (and I don't mean in terms of the loan). I tried to get one up here in Columbus, but after months of the bank dicking around, we finally gave up and moved on to a home that wasn't a foreclosure or short sale.

 

[Slapdash]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Even so, paying people to destroy them is kind of like paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. It doesn't improve the economy.

Not in the short term but it will get things moving faster in the long run. Otherwise, we are looking at a long time before the inventory is absorbed. A very long time.

How about the government gets out of the way and we let the market hit bottom?

Per capita housing equity has already declined to 1978 levels. How many more decades of wealth do you advocate destroying?

 

[Rich Conway]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done. 2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses. 3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work. 4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability. 5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside. 6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes? 7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

I don't know where you cut and pasted this from since you never provide links (which you should do), but this would not do anything to help anyone except those at the top.

Actually, I really like #3 and #7. I'm not a fan of forced "unionism", although I also wouldn't be a fan of the feds telling the states they have to do this. I would like it if each state did it on their own. #7 is a really interesting idea, in that it would force Congress to start from scratch on the tax code, something I think everyone knows should be done but doesn't know how to get there from here.The others are full of pros and cons, and I think the cons outweigh the pros for such blanket statements. For example, "eliminate most licensing requirements" is a bit too broad for my liking, even though I'm certain that some of those requirements aren't necessary.

 

[roadkill1292]

Per capita housing equity has already declined to 1978 levels. How many more decades of wealth do you advocate destroying?

Could you expand on this comment and question so a dummy like me can understand it?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Seven steps to help improve our economy.



1. Immediately halt all regulatory rule-making processes at the federal level. We have enough regulations now to get the job done.

2. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminating these taxes would allow a free flow of investment capital that would enable countless new businesses.

3. Make every state a right-to-work state. Completely outlaw compulsory unionism. Nobody should ever have to join a union in order to work.

4. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It's another jobs killer and inhibits corporate growth and profitability.

5. Institute loser pays at the federal level and urge states to do the same. This means that if you file a lawsuit against someone and you win, good for you. If you lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. Too many lawyers look at lawsuits like a lottery ticket, potential for windfall profits without much downside.

6. Eliminate most business and professional licensing requirements. Why should you need the state's permission to braid hair or to match pillows with drapes?

7. Revamp the tax code- set a date certain for the expiration of our current tax code. That will force congress to come up with a better plan.

I don't know where you cut and pasted this from since you never provide links (which you should do), but this would not do anything to help anyone except those at the top.

Do you own a business? I know I am not at the top and a few of these would help me and my small companies.

I should have been more specific. I meant all of them together, not that every single one is bad.

 

[humpback]

What could get this economy going however is the banks bulldozing the foreclosed homes. The ones no one wants. They are doing it some but they need to go all out. Even if it is 'stimulus' like money to get it done. Jobs created cleaning it up, inventory drops and the housing market is revived.

Seems an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. I don't see how spending taxpayer money to destroy things of value will improve the economy.

No one is going to buy them. There are just way too many of them. As they sit empty they deteriorate.

Not true. The banks just need to make it easier to buy the homes (and I don't mean in terms of the loan). I tried to get one up here in Columbus, but after months of the bank dicking around, we finally gave up and moved on to a home that wasn't a foreclosure or short sale.

What's the difference if you would have bought the foreclosure/short sale vs. buying a non-foreclosure/short sale? The same amount of inventory is left on the market.

 

[Slapdash]

Per capita housing equity has already declined to 1978 levels. How many more decades of wealth do you advocate destroying?

Could you expand on this comment and question so a dummy like me can understand it?

This comment draws on a post I read on economics blog a few months back showing the value of housing as an asset and as equity on an inflation-adjusted per person basis thoughout time. You can see that the collapse in housing prices has led the value of equity to fall to its lowest levels in over 3 decades. Since Bueno is advocating that prices fall much futher to hit its hypothetical "bottom", I think it is fair to ask how many more decades back in equity he wants to go. Hope that makes sense.