| Apr 21 @ 10:45 AM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
i was wondering what some other thoughts are about the "next big thing" that would move and shake our economy in a positive manner. T Boone Pickens has presented us with an excellent stopgap measure with the natural gas scenerio but the only really big thing i have heard picthed so far has been the "green machine". of course every single one of us knows i ain't talking about the next "only 3 easy payments of $19.95!"  of course NASA is ongoing and i support that but what can the U S of A pursue that would bring us back from the huge hole we have dug for ourselves? we be jammin 
|
|
  |
|
| Apr 21 @ 10:59 AM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
SimplyImp
Posts: 1,051
|
Hmmm... start bringing industry back to your own country? With huge tariffs on imports so that it makes it feasible for local industry to compete?
Good question, jerry - not sure how that would actually "fix" the economy, or if it would at all, as the cost of goods would then increase and although employment would increase, the cost of labour would as well.
Interesting question, jerry - I'll be interested to see the suggestions from those with a more in-depth view of the economy.
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 11:29 AM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
thanks Imp. mechanization did indeed prove to be the biggest mover and shaker of our economy at the turn of the 20th century. you therefore created the thought "how far will robotics take us?". personally i don't think robotics will be a big mover and/or shaker. as far as i can tell every thing since mechanization has only significantly added to or improved our economy. going "green" is the only logical direction i can see so far. logically the rich man may be sneaking in the back door on the green machine thingy. what have the tobacco companies diversified into? we hear very little now about the tobacco companies or chemical companies. logic implies they are simply changing their names so that the innocent can be fleeced again and again ok, we may have to wait until a few great minds can get off work this afternoon and evening! LOL we be jammin
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 4:35 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
We can still go a long way with automation.
As it stands, there's a great deal of resistance to automation, since it eliminates jobs. Traditional thinking is we want lots of jobs. We really should think more along the lines of efficient production.
If you were paid to let a robot do your job, would you have a problem with that? If we focussed more on productivity rates, instead of employment rates, we could have higher over all productivity, as well as more leisure time. ("Leisure" time that could be used doing jobs of passion, instead of jobs of obligation.)
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 5:04 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
WebMonster
Posts: 1,307
|
If we're going to do stimulus, stimulate the PEOPLE!
They are who this down-turned economy depends on, and they are barely considered in all of this. They are losing their homes, their jobs, their 401k's and their life savings all around us. And the solution is not very complicated. It all boils down to your average Joe and Jane on the street, spending money to rebuild a faltering economy. Without that, nothing happens. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting ever-wider. This is not a healthy pattern, and it fixes nothing. Yet that's all we've been focusing on.
If the people (average middle class) don't have any money to spend, all the stimulus in the world to so many other places, large corporations and banks and insurance companies, for their executive bonuses et al, won't make a shred of difference. Citizens can't put that kind of money back into a recovering economy.
-WebMonster 
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 6:16 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
ok, lets give "automation" a bit of consideration. present one aspect of automation where it would revitalize about 25% of our economy and at the same time give thought to what type of energy we would use to power such automation. as i mentioned earlier, fossil fuels are being ruled out for several reasons. we do have the natural gas scenerio for a few years but we are talking about the big picture here and not a byproduct. please expand on the automation thing. we be jammin
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 6:02 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
well now, AUTOMATION! thats the only big idea out there? i figured there were more smart arses than this in the current events rooms! oh well. we be jammin
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 6:14 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 3,040
|
If we're going to do stimulus, stimulate the PEOPLE!
While I sort of agree in principal as long as it was taxpayers that got the bulk of it, in the real world, the almost immediate, possibly semi runaway inflation that would result from all the folks on Main Street suddenly having $$ to spend would possibly, if not likely, cause more problems than the $$ itself might have cured.
I have to laugh when I hear someone (particularly the union types!) talking about how outsourcing has wrecked everything. Fact is most anyone, including the most bleeding heart liberal, would not pay $30,000 for a car if they could get the exact same one somewhere else for $15,000. Economics 101...
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 6:15 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
I'd offer up more ideas, but I figure you 'mericans can do somethin' without Canada helping you. lol
Just joking! 
Here's a "brainwave" I had today....thought about it a bit, and seems pretty good, but haven't discussed it with anyone, nor done any research on it....so, it might be totally insane. (I'm sure many of you will think, "Same ol' PBJ.")
Anyway....
Seems general concensus that people don't like the government spending their money. No matter which party is in power, or how they spend our money, the majority of people don't like it.
Unfortunately, when the economy is tanking, "stimulous" is needed. Without money, people don't spend, business doesn't make money, people don't make money, so they can't spend...etc. etc. Everyone gets "cheap", waiting for everyone ELSE to spend our way out of recession. Thus, the government needs to step in, and spend our money for us....even if its spent on useless, wasteful, pointless, etc. programs.....so....
My brainwave: "If you don't, we will."
Give people a chance to spend money, but if they don't, then the government can "step in", and spend it for you. Give people a chance to spend our way out of recession.....but if the people don't do it, the government takes your money, and spends it as they see fit. You can't complain (much), 'cuz you had your chance.
That's the theory.
In practice, it'd be taxation on savings, or taxation on saved income. Or perhaps, taxation on "disposable income". If, at the end of the year, you haven't spent your money....the government could step in and say, "No problem. We'll spend some more of it for you."
A more PC way of looking at it would be:
Currently: $4.00 tax on $10.00 income ($2.00 going to some wacked out government stimulous program)
Proposed: $2.00 tax on $10.00 income....but....if you don't spend that $2.00, and just "save it", the government says, "Fine. We'll take it after all."
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 7:15 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
I know what the next big "bad" thing might be --- massive credit card, student and business loan default. Defaults are at an all-time high, with most costs unrecoverable.
With credit cards, the defaults are being driven by all the people that financed, or are financing, their debt after losing jobs to make ends meet and stay in their homes.
Number one thing to getting the economy untracked is have consumers buying again. This means people need to have stable jobs and paychecks to buy goods, homes, vehicles. In order to do that businesses need to quit shedding workers and start hiring. Unfreezing credit is a huge part of it.
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 7:20 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
one thought someone pitched was to actually give each person over the age of fifty the amount that would equal 500,000$ and in return they would retire. should a person be worth 500K or more they would not be required to retire but would not receive any "stimulus". the main point would be to add money to the system and also create new jobs so to speak. perhaps our social security system would not be needed if i am offered a buy out at age 50. one of the problems that comes to mind is those few folks my age that are unable to keep from spending the entire 500K in Las Vegas on a basketball game! yep, there might just have to be some rules involved in the buyout. at the moment i am quite sure that i could live very comfortably on 25K for about 20 years or so. at my age we have no real responsibilities with the exception of a partner and it is logical that "she" would also be elgible for a buyout. somebody gimme some pros and cons on the 50 y/o 500K buyout. we be jammin
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 9:32 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,909
|
somebody gimme some pros and cons on the 50 y/o 500K buyout One pro would be for the guy yelling "Bring out your dead" every morning.
He would be driving a Penske truck instead of a horse and wagon.
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 10:00 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,173
|
I think that the love of money is the root of all evil and that one cannot serve two masters -- God and mammon... We have been worshiping money for too long and it is time to forget about the economy/money and create a better purpose for life than just having a job so we can buy a certain amount of toys.
Money as Debt shows just what a false god money is -- how it is deceptive/lying...
Here's something BIGGG!
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 11:34 PM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
somebody gimme some pros and cons on the 50 y/o 500K buyout. we be jammin Pros: It would 'create' some jobs (make room for others)
Cons: It would do little to stimulate the economy. As you said yourself, "You could live 20 years...", which means, most of that money would not be spent immediately, it'd be saved for later. (Granted, some selfless seniors would blow it all in Los Vegas! Kudos to them! lol)
The best government stimulous is one which gets other people spending, not one which depends on the government to continue spending.
Best case: Government spends nothing. Give money to people. Everyone spontateneously goes on a shopping spree. ("Tax cut" theory. "Welfare" theory.) Fails because: Depends on individual responsible behaviour.
Typical case: Government goes shopping. Buys crap. Some people keep jobs, spend a bit. ("Tax & spend" theory.)
Worst case: Government spends money, buys nothing. People lose jobs. Buy nothing. Economy dies.
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 11:54 PM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,872
|
Give money to people. Everyone spontateneously goes on a shopping spree.
The US government could distribute coupons that are redeemable within certain industrial or service sectors of the economy, for instance $20,000.00 coupons earmarked for the new automobile industry.
Coupons could also be earmarked to purchase a new home, $20,000.00 as a down payment/closing costs economic stimulator.
Or Coupons to start a new business, $20,000.00 as an economic stimulator for inventory acquisition for any mercantile establishment.
Etc.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 23 @ 12:07 AM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
Yup. That's the sort of program I support, Para.
I'm rather suprised you favour a liberal solution, though.
|
| |
|
| Apr 23 @ 1:16 AM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
I'm "hoping" the next big thing will finally be the fulfillment of clean coal technology.
Coal use is being expanded geometrically by India and Chine, with new plants going online every week (they are much less efficient than US plants, btw). All the car/truck emissions in the US equal a fraction of what these new plants will generate. Coal-fired power plants are by far the biggest emitters of CO2 on earth so need the most drastic, immediate fix.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 23 @ 1:55 AM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
WebMonster
Posts: 1,307
|
The bottom line is consumers are not going to stimulate the economy by spending, and getting cash flowing again, if they have nothing to spend, and nothing in their bank accounts. Things like financing the study of Harvest Mice in the Bay Area for $8 Million Dollars, or building a new rail-line between L.A. and Las Vegas to the tune of Billions, so gamblers can commute from the big city to the casinos in a faster and more efficient way, is not going to contribute to consumers having money to feed into the system. Yet that's the kind of places our money is going.
Building roads and bridges and doing a better job of purifying water are worthy things to do, but the timing is wrong. That doesn't accomplish the urgent objective either. Anything they (Washington) do must create cash flow by average Americans en masse. But for that to happen cash must be available in the hands of consumers, rather than depleted resources, so they can begin once again, to consume. Someone who is in foreclosure, broke and unemployed, is not going to stimulate the economy.
The only way to stimulate economic recovery is to provide ways for consumers to actually have money on hand that they can spend. At this time the projects that have nothing to do with that, need to be eliminated, or at least put on a back burner, along with excessive pork.. This is not the time for such practices.
-WebMonster
|
| |
|
| Apr 23 @ 2:07 AM |
the next BIGGG thing!
|
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
Totally agree, Web:
The only way to stimulate economic recovery is to provide ways for consumers to actually have money on hand that they can spend. At this time the projects that have nothing to do with that, need to be eliminated, or at least put on a back burner, along with excessive pork.. This is not the time for such practices. A combined approach is feasible. No need to sacrifice the world to save the economy. 
"Here's some cash, go spend it." Depends on people actually spending it.
"Here's some coupons/tax credits, go spend." Is better.
"Here's some coupons/tax credits for responsible spending." is best.
The typical "Here's some cash for some company that's been incredibly incompetnat, that might suddenly gain a conscience, that might keep someone employed, might reduce consumer costs, or might move it to an offshore account." approach is just dumb.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 23 @ 2:09 AM |
the next BIGGG thing! |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
PBJ: ...incredibly incompetnat... Just noticed my own typo....but it's funny, so I'm not fixing it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|