We need to abolish Unions so that the what is produced is more affordable($45 for a Union person to bolt on a tail light) Change the Tax system to ,If Im not mistaken, "Flat" tax, The More money you have the more you pay , relative to the cost of the items purchased. I.E. If you are buying a Lear Jet you will pay more Taxes. If a person chooses not to buy luxury items and save it, then that money will be in the Banks circulation.
Put a cap on what C.E.O.s and Cooperate heads Pay themselves. Example: this is old news but its something relevant and close to home....Michael Eisner gives himself a 47 million dollar bonus at Disney while lowering the average wage of the worker. So Put a cap on Executives in order to put more money in wages so we can do with out Unions. People make a higher wage they will be more likely to "Consume" if not money is still there for Banks to invest and loan.
Finally Use some portion of the Gross Domestic Product for Education, Vocational schools ,College, in order to keep the skilled labor numbers up.
IM not an economist so im sure i will be jumped on for this opinion but it makes sense to me.
Why would you abolish Unions. It should be every free man's right to organize themselves in any group they want, unions being one of them (an essential one in a free market, too, I believe). What shouldn't happen is favourable legislation for one group over another. But unions themselves, are mint (if they don't break the law, which they have been known to do at times).
Abolishing unions wouldn't increase the money in the pockets of the workers....quite the opposite...more money would go up the chain to the top and be kept rather than circulating and stimulating the economy...terrible idea
Although i do agree that union power, in some circumstances, can be limiting to a company's ability to remain competitive particularly in regards to manufacturing whereby the jobs can be moved abroad to places with little or no union or minimum wage restrictions.
the other method is to use Keynesian economics and artificially devalue the dollar temporarily to allow US/UK companies to export more and combine it with higher deficit spending...It works in the short term to stimulate economies with struggling but relatively large manufacturing bases (so it might not work in the UK anymore)
Originally posted by jaden101
Abolishing unions would increase the money in the pockets of the workers....quite the opposite...more money would go up the chain to the top and be kept rather than circulating and stimulating the economy...terrible idea
Hence my saying, put a "Cap" on what the C.E.O.s can allot themselves.
I do realize this means more Govt. , of which im not for. I just know that The Manufacturers could not use the excuse that the average car is $25,000 because of there wage expenditures. I use Auto industry as an example. It would apply anywhere.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Hence my saying, put a "Cap" on what the C.E.O.s can allot themselves.
I do realize this means more Govt. , of which im not for. I just know that The Manufacturers could not use the excuse that the average car is $25,000 because of there wage expenditures. I use Auto industry as an example. It would apply anywhere.
Then the argument applies that you might not attract the best people to run your company. If a highly talented senior executive with a great track record of rescuing and rebuilding ailing companies gets told that he is being limited to X amount of money per year in the US....he'll just move to a country when a company will pay him more.
Originally posted by jaden101
I know...I just wanted to head off the conspiracy loving idiots who reside in the forum before they started to rear their ugly heads.
conspiracy or not, every post-enlightenment society has elements whom consciously or not push back against modernization trying to establish their moronic old ways be they feudalism, theocracy, totalitarianism, or totalitarian monarchy. In the east they have names like Putin, Khomeini, zherenovsky, Feisal, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, and Nayasov. In the west they have names like Norquist, Cheney, Dobson, Freidman, Kisinger, Bush, and Wildmon. And when people with antiquated ideas of economics, social orders, morality, etc. start ****ing around with economics, what you get, intentionally or unintentionally is either a catatrophe like we are having, or pits full of dead bodies, or both.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
conspiracy or not, every post-enlightenment society has elements whom consciously or not push back against modernization trying to establish their moronic old ways be they feudalism, theocracy, totalitarianism, or totalitarian monarchy. In the east they have names like Putin, Khomeini, zherenovsky, Feisal, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, and Nayasov. In the west they have names like Norquist, Cheney, Dobson, Freidman, Kisinger, Bush, and Wildmon. And when people with antiquated ideas of economics, social orders, morality, etc. start ****ing around with economics, what you get, intentionally or unintentionally is either a catatrophe like we are having, or pits full of dead bodies, or both.
I would say the problem didn't stem from Antiquated economic policies this time and certainly not from social orders or morality.
Quite the opposite...Hence the reason people are harking back to old economic policies to try and stabilise the situation...i.e...investment in infrastructure just like in the industrial revolution.
We obviously can't go down the route that brought the US out of the great depression in the 1930's because the economy was stimulated by war politics...mass manufacturing of weapons meant massive job creation as well the the killing of many people who would otherwise be a burden on society (horrible way of looking at it i know)
global war economics wouldn't work nowadays because it would simply result in global destruction.
There's nothing new about this. Reagan reversed policies and destroyed the protection of the new deal which began this whole cycle. Why does human nature seem to dictate that once it's become prosperous and stable, a government will not listen or do anything drastic for it's peoples until it remembers Robsepierre and realizes that angry poor people are called a "mob" when they're in groups for a reason? I mean isn't the entire purpose of rex 84, the establishment of of NORTHCOM, and the generally higher state of alert and expectation that this crisis may lead to outright revolution once a majority of americans get fed up?