How would you "fix" the economy?

[Stephen Morgan]

Personally I don’t think it’s possible at this point without a great deal of pain, the trick being to find ways to fairly distribute said financial suffering.

I disagree. The world produces more food than it consumes, even with millions of acre of potentially productive but "uneconomic" and unsubsidised farm land, millions of homes are empty in the western world while millions of people are homeless, the costs of industrial production are lower then ever... there's plenty for all to live well, if you don't have enough it's because someone else has stolen it from you. Those people may need to take a little suffering.

This list doesn’t include things which wouldn’t necessarily help the economy, but which would be healthy for a democracy, such as removing corporate personhood from practice, although this step may be necessary to achieve some of the things on my list.

Corporations need to be made more like people. They need to be punished for their crime, conscripted for wars, properly taxed, made to pay tax in the country where they reside rather than a country of their choosing, given a limited life span and occasionally imprisoned or executed.

It also doesn’t include suspected suppressed technologies being released for humanities benefit as I, personally, can’t know for sure if these things actually exist or not.

There's plenty of evidence they exist. Mostly war technologies, though, so probably not likely to improve our everyday lives.

It also doesn't include a few things where I feel I have no good answer, such as immigration, where I only have opinions on what I don't want to see happen, such as Arizona's recent legislation, and only really facile ideas about what I favor: if they are here they should have basic human rights, living wages and conditions.

You want to know why no-one actually does anything about illegal, and in the EU especially legal, immigration? Supply and demand. More supply for labour allows lower wages.

1) Cut military spending in half, ending all wars and occupations. More cuts to be made as what is determined to be truly necessary for defense.

America finds itself surrounded by allies and oceans, with a massive nuclear arsenal and no enemies with the capacity to strike so far away militarily. It has no need for a conventional military at all. We could easily make do with territorials.

3) Plan/support for localized food production and jobs.

Which would leave some areas with a glut of food and some without enough to eat.

4) End the ‘War on Drugs’. Legalize and regulate. Release all non-violent drug offenders on probation. Expand drug rehab clinics.

Rehab doesn't really work, although if it was legalised Ibogaine could be used which might help. Also a massive cut in police numbers would be possible if addicts were supplied by the government with safe versions of their poison, relatively speaking.

7) Tariffs on all companies not solely based within the US. Pro-rated as a percentage of company spending/ investment outside the US. Possible exceptions for goods/services not possible or difficult to produce domestically. May need some flexibility here with regard to company’s host country’s financial situation. Must include living wage/conditions and environmental guideline in importation of any product.

This would lead to a massive increase in inflation as prices on foreign produce rose, the comprehensive eradication of American exports as other developed nations reciprocated and the likely bankruptcy of several third world nations.

8 ) Revisit tax structure with an eye towards taxing extreme wealth and corporate profits.

Of course the wealthy and corporations don't pay the taxes they owe now, so more important would be requiring any company operating withing your jurisdiction or doing business in your jurisdiction to reveal its ultimate owners and all taxes and fees paid elsewhere, with terminal punishments for non-compliance. Perhaps also make sure a minimum level of tax is paid, so if only 10% is paid in a tax haven like the Isle of Man more must be paid elsewhere.

9) Nationalize critical industries.

Firstly banking and the natural monopolies, of course.

10) Break up monopolies.

Probably an unattainable goal, and less important if monopolies are put under democratic control.

11) Public financing of elections.

Not sure I like the idea of taxpayers giving more money to politicians. Why not just limit donations to political parties, a maximum of £500 per year per person, none to come from for-profit corporations.

12) Medicare for all. First new jobs in Medicare to be offered to former insurance industry workers. Medical supplies, doctor fees and drug prices subject to negotiation with Medicare.

Doesn't apply here, although I'd like to see the PFI terminated and the drug price control scheme enforced. In the British experience National Insurance was introduced to ensure unemployment benefit, health care and old age pensions in 1911, followed by the creation of the NHS in 1945, drug prices decided unilaterally by government, doctor's stipends paid according to their merits, GPs being paid according to the number of patients registered with them, hospitals according to work done (with senior doctors in charge of the running of the hospital, at that time).

14) Attempt controlled collapse of housing market, as prices are still well above historical baselines.

Or alternatively seize empty houses through adverse possession, refurbish them and rent them out to needy tenants.

15) Aid, as is possible, to countries the US has dominated/damaged/destroyed in order to create good will and trading partners under living wage/conditions and environmentally healthy guidelines.

So you intend to dictate to the democratically elected governments of financially disadvantaged nations what wages they should pay and what regulations they should enforce, in exchage for "aid", which normally takes the form of refuse, such as out of date drugs, and interest-bearing loans.

This is also contrary to your protectionist job-based stance further up. Personally I think we should just do less work. Be like the French and limit work weeks to 35 hours. If the work needs doing more people must then be employed to do it. Less unemployment, less overemployment.

Would that "fix" it? I'm certainly not qualified to say. Obviously every one of those suggestions would require an analysis of cost, savings, and benefits, done with human rights and environmental impact taken into full accounting.

Such concerns may be nullified by the revolution which must inevitably take place for any of these things to come to pass.

I know there's a lot of super sharp people on this board. I often feel I'm auditing a class I haven't done the prerequisites for. Looking forward to any comments.

You're not a scientologist, are you?

[Stephen Morgan]

- increase taxes/royalties on extracted natural wealth (e.g. ore, fresh water, timber), reduce income taxes proportionally.

So you wish to tax the extraction of that which is common wealth and in return reduce those taxes which impact most heavily on the rich.

- tax & dividend on pollutants - tax polluters (including ghg's, nitrates, particulate carbon, carcinogens, persistent org.carbons) and pay 1/2 of proceeds to all citizens as an equal dividend, other half to fund ..

Or we could enforce regulations to stop it happening as much as possible, rather than taxing and hoping the higher costs lead to the market magically solving our problems.

- green corps for un/underemployed + gap year-ers to retrofit housing, support social services, maintain infrastructure, remediate degraded land & waters.

Or we could execute "gap yearers", nail their heads to trees as nest boxes for birds or squirrels and confiscated their parents' excessive wealth for the common good.

- 'Tobin' taxes on all share & derivative markets to edge out speculative trading

Or we could just ban it.

Yes, complete and utter reform of Wall Street. Banks should be public utilities that do nothing but loan money as non-profits.

So yeah, we need to completely dismantle and reform, from the bottom up, the two most powerful sections of the current gangster economy.

I'm sure that'll go just GREAT.

Used to have big publicly/mutually owned financial institutions in Britain, the building societies ran the mortgage market and the TSBs had a large chunk of the savings market. Didn't end well.

Set a limit to "how much money there is". Surely arbitrary. But set a limit.

Would increase the power of the holders of capital as their currency reserves earned scarcity value. Better to print money until it's worthless.

Use that limit to get something done. Infrastructure, education, organic agriculture, retool all of the sprawl, turn all uninhabited strip malls into common gardens free of charge to all who contribute, teach others how to contribute if they don't know how. Just no money for anything. Get rid of money when it comes to issues of the common good. Perhaps a different currency for commercial purposes than those used for public purposes.

So we're expecting people to work without any recompense that can be traded for goods or services, or at most to be paid in truck.

Then begin to build a high speed rail system that allows us to get back to our families which this current economic model had broken into shreds thus making us "successful" in 1999, but not in 2009 and beyond. Families are split up, because of capitalism. This shit owes us. Just imagine a world with so much less need or use for oil. There's this overpass I walk across to get home sometimes, just the thousands of cars and trucks you can see in a ten minute span is dizzying. I always imagine their fuel tanks. I then multiply my experience millions of times over, the world over.

Of course without oil we wouldn't be able to grow enough food due to it's use as fertilised and pesticide and in countless other applications.

[norton ash]

Of course without oil we wouldn't be able to grow enough food due to it's use as fertilised and pesticide and in countless other applications.

Which is why we should stop burning all of it.

Speaking of, you're on fire today, Morgan. Nice work.

[Stephen Morgan]

Though I don't think they're exactly errors, but the design of a patriarchal elite.

Matriarchal elite, but undoubtedly intentional.

That's a home run. Truth!

No, is home truth. Run!

My two cents:

Legalize Cannabis cultivation worldwide. Bye bye War on Drugs (Marijuana), hello renewed industry (a real green economy) and perhaps...just perhaps, a new spiritual awakening. You may say I'm a dreamer...

You want evil globalist government? I say you inaccurately predict effects of legalisation of marijuana. Only likely effect: slight reduction in profits to criminal gangs. Must legalise all drugs, provide the most addictive for free to addicts. Any other policy is equivalent to a hand out to murderous drug dealing gangs.

Legalize industrial hemp and cannabis. Tax the shit out of the cannabis.

Even if we don't cure our financial problems, we'd all be a lot happier.

Not those of us who abstain from bodily pollutants. Also higher tax rates will impede the effort of legal and regulated cannabis to undercut the illicit market.

Very true, and why I secretly hope the globalist agenda succeeds in destroying the planet and killing off two thirds of it's inhabitants, because only then will people begin to think, "Hmm, maybe we were doing it wrong."

I'm sure if the globablists succeed in killing twelve thirteenths of the world population, leaving 500,000,000 out of about 6,500,000,000 they will have contingency plans to ensure their continued control. Our mass is our advantage.

got news for ya...the average farmer is not making the money on cannabis. The middleman is. And in this economy, where is the money for cannabis going to come from? The po' folk who are smoking it? They are already just barely making it. If it is legalized, the price will drop further, lowering the tax base. The money for the economy must come from a broad base...cannabis is not the savior...although it may be PART of the solution...

There's no such thing as fair trade drugs, no matter how often one snorts cocaine from a waitrose fair trade banana skin. The solution to a shrinking tax base is to find out where the money has gone, in this case the pockets of the rich, and tax it nice and heavily.

[Stephen Morgan]

Of course without oil we wouldn't be able to grow enough food due to it's use as fertilised and pesticide and in countless other applications.

Which is why we should stop burning all of it.

We don't burn all of it, crude oil is refined into products consisting of various lengths of hydrocarbon chain, resulting in a range of viscosities in those substances produced, from explosive and flammable gases such as methane to the tar with which we pave our streets. Those we know as petrol, or gasoline in foreign parts, and diesel are burned, as is the gas which is put into lighters or used as liquid petroleum gas in cars. Denser parts of the oil, which I believe corresponds to longer hydrocarbon chains, are used to pave roads, produce padded packing materials, plastic bags, the raw materials for polyester clothing and so forth. As different parts of the oil are used for different purposes the most likely result of reducing demand for fuel-parts while sustaining demand for the heavier parts would be the burn-off of the fuel-parts non-productively, sustaining the same levels of carbon emissions without the benefit of luxurious personal transport.

Hence burning it is fine.

Speaking of, you're on fire today, Morgan. Nice work.

Please, I get enough compliments in real life. Just the other week the woman at the jobcentre said my paperwork was unusually properly filled out.

[freemason9]

it's not about distributing the suffering, it's about distributing the wealth. actually, though, it doesn't matter at this point because we have an economic system that was doomed to fail. marx had it right a very long, long time ago. too bad our schools are too wrapped in propaganda to teach actual economic theory.

this system cannot be fixed. it must collapse, and something new must evolve. i can't see far enough ahead to envision that, and i fear that nothing will evolve.

a colleague projects civilization decay and virtual human extinction within 120 years

[Jeff]

Opportunity knocks for the next economics idol

Rick Salutin
From Friday's Globe and Mail

"So there’s really no new model for how to run this economy, and nobody’s even, I think, thinking about that question, much less an answer.” -Doug Henwood, of Left Business Observer, on The Real News Network

Well, maybe not no one. I was watching a BBC report on the massive French strikes this week against government attempts to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. The BBC reporter looked as frustrated as King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail at these irritating, insulting French types. Surely they must learn to accept hard economic reality. But the placards behind him read, Travailler moins gagner plus – Work less, earn more – which I took to mean that you deserve your hard-won right to retire and revitalize your life after decades of often dull, soul-killing work. The line is a play on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s slogan, Work more to earn more.

I admit at first I was as shocked as the BBC. Work less – are they nuts? But they raised an old, crucial question: Does the economy exist for people or do people exist for the economy? That doesn’t tell you what to do economically, but it reminds you to examine the direction you want to head, and whether you’ve wandered seriously off track. People from places with traditions of questioning their ancien régimes – like France, South Africa or Mozambique, all in the last month – keep raising those issues.

The policies to get there, however, fall to leaders, experts etc. – and they’re the ones who seem out of ideas. The most prominent critical voices, such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, repeat a few Keynesian notions: stimulus, regulation, more stimulus. The new Austerians, like our own Harper government, want to do even less: back off, cut programs and taxes, and wait for “the American consumer” to start spending again. With what – the credit cards and housing bubble that precipitated this?

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1701852/

[Wombaticus Rex]

Does the economy exist for people or do people exist for the economy?

LULZ!!! What a convenient mis-representation. Since "people" is only one of two options. It's either there to serve all humanity or "it" -- this reified concept known as "The Economy" -- is against us all. Somewhere in between, and thus nowhere in the article, is the truth: it exists for some people. A very small handful, in fact.

[Laodicean]

An excellent 5 part article by Timothy Noah over at Slate:

The Great Divergence: What's causing America's growing income inequality?

[82_28]

From part 2 of The Great Divergence that Laodicean links to. I read the first paragraph quoted here and was answered by the precise thing I was thinking in the second one.

The graph demonstrates that during the past three decades, women have outperformed men at all education levels in the workforce. Both men and women have (in the aggregate) been moving out of moderately skilled jobs—secretary, retail sales representative, steelworker, etc.—women more rapidly than men. But women have been much more likely than men to shift upward into higher skilled jobs—from information technology engineer and personnel manager on up through various high-paying professions that require graduate degrees (doctor, lawyer, etc.).

These findings suggest that women's relative gains in the workplace are not solely a You've-Come-a-Long-Way-Baby triumph of the feminist movement and individual pluck. They also reflect downward mobility among men. My Slate colleague Hanna Rosin, writing in the Atlantic, recently looked at these and other data and asked, "What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men?"

Let me say this. I work around mostly women and most of my best friends are women -- the friends I consider the most dear etc. But here is what I have noticed: Women tend to lack the rebelliousness of a man. Women tend to conform while men tend to "think" they are bucking the trend. I am not saying it is true in all cases, but a man who follows rules *at all times* is a "fag" and a woman who does so is just, well, a woman. However, where a man may be happy with just a pair of Carhartts, a shirt and a single pair of shoes, women are relentlessly prodded into buying shit they don't need at all and ALL THE TIME to boot. Things must be cute, things must exude your personality and class, the things you do, everything you wear, do to yourself is scrutinized by some other chick.

Dudes even when they don't get along, get along -- perhaps this is from the raising of our fathers. Women have a pressure to succeed and look good doing it while a man can simply grow a beard and be done with it. The cost of my discretionary money no where approaches what say my girlfriend "needs". The value of a video game, for instance far exceeds the ratio of a single tube of cream or something my girlfriend or one of her peers may purchase. A man can just up and say "I'm going fishing this week." A woman, for the most part, cannot -- socially, by herself or with fellow female friends. They make shopping dates and such.

This is certainly not a dig on women at all! It's just it takes me 5 minutes to be ready for work and for all the women I have ever lived with, at the very least an hour. I ask them how they can handle it. The usual response is a shoulder shrug and "I just have to. It's expected of me." Most men I know from the blue collar working class, say fuck you to such things.

Women, for sure can be rebellious and independent, but it seems more contained within a fashion paradigm -- some kind of a hypnosis akin to maybe NFL football for the average man. I only say this because my current lady (who I hope to spend the rest of my life with) is in the cosmetics industry and my ex who was heavily into the fashion industry. They try to create fashions which give off the perception of freedom and rebellion, when all it is is idiotic consumption. No make up and no fashion is far hotter to me than any cute dress, accessory or shoe could ever do. But, this is the world women happen to live in apart from me and like anybody, they must fit in. It's somewhat nice being in your 30s. I suppose I was sorta like what I described in my teens and twenties, so there is obviously no iron clad hard, fast rule.

[annie aronburg]

You should try telling the women in your life what you really think of them.

That would be great for the economy.

[Perelandra]

.

[Jeff]

Women tend to conform while men tend to "think" they are bucking the trend.

Not my experience at all. And political polling, at least in Canada, suggests the opposite.

Dudes even when they don't get along, get along

That must explain why there's so little male on male violence.

A man can just up and say "I'm going fishing this week." A woman, for the most part, cannot -- socially, by herself or with fellow female friends. They make shopping dates and such.

[82_28]

So, I was not remarking about specific women, but more an observation about society at large and how we tend to view ourselves in and of the industries some may know a bit about. As I write this I am sitting near like a 3 inch three ring binder of trade secrets of one of the largest cosmetics and beauty companies in the world. My girlfriend has been training to do district "teaching" in San Francisco this past month. So I got all the goods and all the stories. This shit is semi top secret.

Let me tell you how this company and the companies she does business with think of their average customer or client. They don't! It's all impulse buy and all of it priced thousands of times more than the actual product is worth. I can't think of one similar industry that appeals to men in the same way. Sure, some men are different as some women are different. But, me and my gf happen to work in industries and locations that cater to this characteristic of materialism -- so we see it all the time. But when we're off work, we hang out at the places that longshoremen and fishermen go to so we see both sides on a daily basis. If you saw some of the shit her company sells you would be aghast -- but perhaps you wouldn't be. My point was, was that rebellion is contained in a lip gloss bottle that sells for $29 and it's named "Orgasm" or some shit.

My other point was that women don't have the equal right to be a dingy longshoreman or cook and still be thought of as "beautiful" by society at large. Or even normal. Men are allowed to be dirty, women are not. I was pointing out the unfairness of it all and did it by way of observations of mine which include what I tend to think as women not having the ability to fully rebel from the system the way that is afforded to a man. Thus, why they exist in greater numbers in higher education.

I just asked my girlfriend about this and she said it's because men can get jobs a woman could never get without having to go to school. Which, again, is not true in all cases. However, considering society at large, it is a very important piece of the puzzle.

Another anecdote. It ain't just Americans either. We have Mexican friends. Sometimes we attend birthday parties for the kids and shit. The men all hang out and have their way with whatever it is they all want to do. The women, yes, the women all hang out in the kitchen and talk in hushed tones. Clearly this is much different than our American, Canadian or European ways, but the point I was making still stands.

I don't know where I read it, but it has been said that were the impulse buys that women make concerning their beauty eliminated, the economy would collapse overnight. I believe it. My entire livelihood is contingent upon women coming to my area and giving my company money. No places to make impulse buys and look the look -- no income.

And Annie, yes I do talk to the women I know like this. They are adult conversations among friends. All of us have opinions and observations. One needn't jump to conclusions about the heart of someone who is merely being honest about a perfectly benign observation of his. No, I do not expect any of it to "save the economy". In fact, the opposite. I die, my girlfriend dies when and if this whole extraneous and over-complex system dries up.

[Nordic]

Corporations need to be made more like people. They need to be punished for their crime, conscripted for wars, properly taxed, made to pay tax in the country where they reside rather than a country of their choosing, given a limited life span and occasionally imprisoned or executed.

That's a great quote. Don't we have a thread for great R.I. quotes? Maybe I should go find it.