This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I Put a Deal on the Table
The lack of anything concrete coming from either side on the cliff debacle is troubling. I don't think the process should be as hard as it is made out to be. I have a plan. I try to address all the hot-button issues. I also try to force significant concessions. I attempt to craft something that has a chance of working.
Before the specifics, I have to address the broad topic of "Debts and Deficits". My thoughts on the "big picture" drive some of the details in my proposal(s):
A) It is not possible, nor is it desirable, for the USA to have a balanced budget at anytime in the foreseeable future.
B) It is possible to reduce the deficits to a more manageable percentage of GDP. Achieving this will result in a lower trajectory of the rate of increase in the national debt.
C) All talk of deficits, budgets and taxes is a fools game. There is only one thing that matters. Economic growth will solve the debt problem, or it won't.
It doesn't matter what the tax rate on the top 2% is, or if the retirement age is pushed out a few years. For the next ten-years, it will be grow-or-die. Washington has to focus on that side of the equation. As of today, all the focus is in the wrong direction.
It proved difficult for me to solve all of the crushing economic issues facing the country in 300 words or less. My thoughts are presented first in summary, after that, the details.
SUMMARY
A series of compromise on taxes and spending that results with:
1) Income of $250 - $450 > to 37.5%.
2) Income of $450+ to 39.6%.
3) Income <$250 - Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
4) Long-term Cap. Gains - unchanged.
5) Patch the AMT for one-year.
6) The Payroll tax for Social Security reverts to 6.2% - A 2% increase.
7) Deductions for state and local taxes paid will be capped at $30,000. Deductions for mortgages and charity will be retained.
8) Inheritance tax will be 40% over $4m.
8) The Transaction Account guaranty will be allowed to expire.
9) Emergency unemployment benefits will be extended for one year.
10) The programed cuts in spending (the Sequestered Amounts) will be reduced by 50%.
11) Social Security and Medicare spending will be reduced by $1T from 2014 - 2023. 50% of the savings will come from Medicare, 50% from Social Security. The framework that achieves the savings at Social Security will be applied to both the Military and Federal Workers retirement funds.
12) A four-year, $500b spending program dedicated to infrastructure building will be established. A portion of this program will be funded with new federal excise taxes.
Now the long-winded discussion:
On Taxes
- The Bush era tax breaks for those under $250k should be made permanent. (Both sides can take credit for this)
- The Bush breaks for those >$250 will be increased as follows:
a) $250-450k goes to 37.5%
b) >$450 goes to the full 39.6%
The change in tax rates would be a substantial concession by Republicans. This is nearly 100% of what Obama has demanded. Note the carve-out for the $250-450 set. That actually is a significant portion of the top 2%, so when you look at the reality, the Republicans don't do so bad.
This increase in taxes would fail to achieve the minimum of $800b of increased revenues that Republicans have offered. To bring the revenue number up to $1trillion (Obama now wants 1.4T, but he previously agreed to 800b) I propose that there be limits put on deductions. This is an issue that Republicans have insisted on. Democrats hate this topic as it hurts homeowners (mortgage deduction) and charitable giving (this is about Religion).
To defuse this very tender topic I propose to limit deductions on only one class of deductions. State income and local property taxes deductions would be subject to a cap. The cap would be around $30,000. ALL other deductions would remain as they are today.
Who would win with this cap on "other taxes paid"? Red states like Texas would win very big (no state income tax). NY, California and Illinois would get crushed (all big Democratic states with big income and property taxes). It would drive a stake into the political "prizes" in the country.
All the big-ticket fund raisers for the Democrats on both coasts would pay for this compromise. If Republicans want some additional revenue, and to set themselves up for 2014, they will push for this. The Democrats won't have a leg to stand up on with any opposition.
-AMT would have to be patched over for another year. There simply is not enough time left for this complex topic to be worked out before New Year's Eve.
This is a terrible, stupid, awful, unfair and ill-conceived tax; but some form of it is necessary.
The classic example is Mitt Romney. He made $10m and paid 11% tax. Sorry, there has to be a minimum. The current minimum level for AMT is an absurdly high 28%. I think it should be 20%. A new minimum tax has to be part of a deal; it broadens the base, it raises revenues and insures that fat-cats like Warren Buffett finally pay their "fair share" (I want Warren to get what he's been saying).
Let's be clear about the implications of a minimum tax. Yes, it does some good things, but it will also have the effect of reducing charitable giving. Mitt would not have given $4m to the Mormon Church if he'd been faced with a 20% minimum tax. The "tax-efficiency" of his giving would have capped out his charity at only $2m. (It's about the money, after all)
Anyway, we're talking budgets and taxes; hard choices have to be made. Last I heard, there was something about Church and State anyway.
-The 2% reduction in payroll taxes will be eliminate. Sorry. Either Social Security (SS) is a self-funded program that doesn't add to the deficit (as so many liberals have claimed), or it is an entitlement program that sucks down $170B a year from the general tax payers. Those who love SS can't have their cake and eat it too.
Note: The 2% increase on payrolls is a very regressive tax increase. Come January, it will be felt by 155m workers. They will all hate that. This is a perfect opportunity for Republicans/Conservatives to swing popular opinion away from SS. This "mind change" of the voters away from SS is the only hope that Republican's have.
-The current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains will be retain. However, the establishment of a minimum tax (see above) will raise the effective tax on capital to 20% for those who have incomes/deductions that make them subject to the minimum. Again, this is a compromise that both sides should be willing to accept.
-Inheritance taxes will be set at 40%, the threshold for the tax will be set at $4m. (another compromise)
Okay, that solves all the tax matters that people have been fussing about. Now the rest of the issues:
Regulatory
- Do not extend Transaction Account Guaranty (subsidy for banks, TBTF issue - Trust me, the world will not end when this happens).
- Extend unemployment benefits for yet another year.
These trade-offs are on political lines. No one should argue about this horse-trade.
Sequestered Spending
IMHO, the cutback amounts that were agreed to as part of lat year's Budget Control Act were draconian. They were more of a "show-pony" to prove to the public that D.C. was serious. Recall that a lot of the maneuvering on this was driven to placate the likes of S&P. The motivations for setting the sequestered amounts were misguided. If there is to be a deal before the end of the year, a very big concession has to be made by both sides on spending.
Time does not permit much finesse in this important area. My simple solution is to cut the sequestered amounts in half.
Multi Year Stimulus Program
The problem, and the solution, is staring us in the face every day. The country needs a big investment in infrastructure. All our "stuff" is falling apart. Want construction jobs? Build things. Want high paying jobs? Build complicated things. Want economic growth? Build things that will have a long-term return on the investments. The list of things that need fixing/new is endless. The only question is, "Where does the money come from?"
I propose doing something radical. I would like to establish a national sales tax. The tax would be 1/2%; it would be applied to all retail sales EXCLUDING autos. The tax would be collected by the individual states. Washington would put up an additional $5 for every dollar of federal sales tax.
The retail sales number (again- ex-autos) is nearing $4T. A 1/2% national tax would raise only $20b. Such a small amount would not have a significant negative consequence to the economy. D.C.would contribute 5Xs the amount collected; bringing the total in year one to $120B. I would create borrowing authority for up to 75% of the next few years of anticipated revenues (this borrowing is secured by a dedicated source of revenue. This is a different type of debt, it gets paid back.) Borrowing will facilitate/accelerate the timing of the new infrastructure investments. 100% of all of this is spent on infrastructure - no leakage permitted. The states choose the projects.
$120b is a decent sized stimulus (equivalent to the 2% payroll cut). To be effective, there would have to be a commitment to do this for a minimum of four years. Every year, there would be an obligation of Congress to either extend it for an additional year, or let it die in the remaining three.
This would help the broader economy. Jobs would come fairly soon after inception; every month the demand for labor would rise. The results would be visible in a matter of years (new roads, bridges, airports, seaports, water projects etc.)
What I am proposing is very modest. By itself, it will not create a boom. Economically, it is a step in a direction that must be taken. Remember, it's grow or die. There will be opposition to any new tax, especially a federal consumption tax. It will add to the bill at the grocery store, gas pump and Wall-Mart.
Call me a fool, but I believe that everyone should have some skin in the game. Yes, the cost of a quart of milk for a family already living on the poverty line will go up by a penny. And the cost, all in, for those new spiked heels, will be $2.50 extra. But the fact is, the milk is probably being bought with food stamps, and who cares about the cost of those stilettos (or a boat for that matter).
I say to D.C., "Suck it up!" and get this done. If there is no movement on this front in 2013, then you can kiss off any chance for digging out of an economic hole for the rest of the Obama years.
The politics of this are interesting. I would like to hear a Pol say that this (or some/any version) is "off the table". That legislator would get their picture in the paper, for being a fool.
The deficit hawks will not like this. It would add $100b a year onto the deficit ledger. To this, I say that there are two kinds of debt; one is bad, the other is okay. NYC's Triborough Bridge has paid for itself 50Xs over. Same with the Golden Gate,the airports, the interstate, the water clean up/availability investments etc.
Who would love this plan? All fifty Governors would cheer. The states would have a pot load of money to spend. Yes, this will create its own set of problems, but governors can be held accountable a lot easier than some technocrats in D.C. If money has to be spent (it does) then I think it is better spent by the states.
Another group that would cheer, would be the 1,000,000 small business's (and their employees) who would benefit. What needs building requires steel, aluminum, concrete; it needs welders, masons, truck drivers, architects, engineers and designers.
So far I've covered all of the critical variables (including a nifty stimulus idea), save two. What remains are the thorniest of all issues. What to do with the debt limit and what to do about entitlements (Social Security/ Medicare/all other federal retirement plans).
The Debt Limit
The debt limit is one of the dumbest things ever created. It is an issue that, at the extreme , could send the country into a depression in a matter of months. (We came fairly close a year ago.) The debt limit creates the opportunity for a self inflicted wound that could lead to a systemic implosion. With these things in mind, it's easy to say "Fix this!".
But, sadly, the debt limit is a speed bump that must exist in some form. The US debt trajectory is simply unsustainable. Something has to exist that acts as a "check" in the system. That check is not coming from the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The only thing left holding back exponential growth of red ink is the debt limit. So, as flawed as it is, the concept of a debt limit has to be retained.
This would be a big concession by Obama. In exchange for giving in on this, the Republicans would be forced to set a new debt limit that would cover the country through the 2014 elections. The debt limit agreement would be held hostage to a resolution of the final, and most difficult of all issues, entitlement reform. There is not a chance in a million that there can be any agreement on entitlements in the next 17 days; the issue is too complicated and too emotive.
Entitlements
There would be a framework for reforms as part of a deal to get over the cliff. In order for all of the tax fixes and other compromises I've described to get inked before the lights go out, there would have to be a deal that outlined the scope of the cuts in entitlements. Both sides would know what has to be accomplished, and be committed to the process.
Legislators would have a short window to complete a final agreement. If there is no deal on what gets cut to achieve the agreed target by April, then everything falls apart in a very big way. The debt ceiling extension (required in April) will be contingent on a final agreement on entitlements. The targets for entitlement cuts that will be agreed to in December and made into law by springtime:
2014 - 2023 Cuts in Social Security and Medicare = $1,000,000,000,000.(The Big T)
The cuts will come 50% from Medicare, 50% from Social Security.
I can hear the screams already. Obama wins the election, then turns on his base and guts America's favorite social programs? Not a chance! Hear me out.
- Over the ten-year period, Medicare (Does not include Medicaid and CHIPS) will pay out 4% of GDP. In real dollars that comes to $9T. $500B (5.5%) of savings/cuts has to be found as part of the final deal.
- Social Security will pay out $11 Trillion. Both sides of the aisle will have to find ways to cut $500b (4.5%).
What I'm proposing is by no means "gutting" these programs. If the folks in D.C can't agree on cutting $1T out of $20+T over ten-years, the country would deserve the consequences (Shutdown, default, downgrade). To get the complete package of a cliff saving deal, all of the parties would have to agree to the $1t, and sort out the details in 90 short days.
Obama has said that he would have a discussion on entitlements, "sometime next year". That doesn't work, it's not what most Americans want. It's asking for a fight. Obama, a number of Democrats, and the House Republicans, have to do what the have already promised.
I'm certain there is a political consensus to take a walk in this direction. No "new thinking" is required. The tools to achieve this have been discussed to death. Age and COLA adjustments, means testing, more taxes on benefits, higher fees. A beat down on the providers, blah, blah blah.
It would not be difficult to suck $1t out of these two very big pieces of the pie. To a significant extent, this would have to be born by those with both means and/or income. We are headed in the direction where medical benefits will be priced at 100% of the Social Security checks for those who have done well for themselves. Sorry.
Liberals will hate this. Their opposition is ideological, not economics. I think they have no argument at all. The objective of the changes in entitlements is to strengthen these programs so that they can achieve what they were intended for. An insurance safety net, not a retirement program will free medical.
70+% of the people who get these benefits are heavily dependent on them for basic necessities. The goal is to ensure that the 70% get what they need, the 30% who are less dependent (or don't really need it at all) have to pay a price.
One can't take a more liberal position than this. So folks like Krugman, Pelosi and all of the other defenders of "the safety net" will have to stand by and watch this happen.
Conservatives won't be pleased either, by and large, this is money out of their pockets. What they (and the country) get in return is an economic plan that has a chance, and a very important directional change for entitlements. That result would be worth the cost.
If Obama wants a legacy he will have to solve the fiscal cliff in a way that addresses the real problems the country faces. That means he has to take on entitlements. If Obama chooses to extend the Roosevelt Dream, there will be no fiscal cliff deal, and he will have no legacy at all.
»
- advertisements -
Yeah, let's spend more on infrastructure from the federal level so union assholes can line their pockets and stand on the side of the road watching their buddies work. And so our political "representative" assholes can reward all their contributors with sweet no-bid contracts and other welfare.
Bruce deserves accolades for trying , but considering the ZH response leads me to believe this thing is going to blow sky high in 2013.
This piece is up at a number of places. EVERYONE hates it.
I think you're right. There is no chance for a deal. Kaboom!
Bruce, nobody wants any pain. That insures all will get it
Everyone hates it because it sucks.
The big problem here is: this audience doesn't believe in government, and here you are trying to fill government's shoes. You've GOT TO expect a beating. This is a more appropriate post for something like the FT, rather than ZH.
Yeah, any government revenue plan that doesn't involve drowning the federal government in a bathtub is not gonna play very well around these parts. Nor should it. The only thing the federal government is efficient at is wasting my tax dollars and needlessly growing its own bloated corpse. Oh, and making people into completely helpless zombie automatons.
Good plan Bruce. Fair and balanced.
Yes, the Chinese economy needs stimulating.
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Controversially Made in Chinahttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/20/san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge-co...
Bruce:
The federal income tax started small, and the .GOV we don't deserve has increased it steadily. While I like your suggestion, I no longer believe that we have proof of WMD in other countries we desire to bomb, nor do I believe that a .GOV can insure the money in a "lockbox"
The issue is simple: it's more revenue and thus it has to be spent. I'm not sure that a ceiling can be successfully on any tax.
How about we try a real bold idea - pork stamps for congress. Each congress critter would get so much pork per month, not unlike food stamps, and could then subsequently squander thier portions in the manner they see fit. Sort of austerity for congress. We also cut the .PREZ budget by 10% and use these proceeds for infrastructure only and in your words, "I say to D.C., "Suck it up!" and get this done"
Let's try to put some brakes on this accelerator-only hoop-dee.
Thanks for putting the time into this, Bruce. If only our politicians would use their time at the national microphones to deliver the same suggestions, we might have something to follow. But they're all just running aways from the problem and positioning themselves to blame it all on "X", just like many of the nihilists posting here.
Well Bruce, I've gone through the comment's...
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS FOR YOU!!
Dragged over the coals.......
I prefer the Old Building/New Building theory. If government work is being done out of an old building, it's probably something authorized by the Constitution. If a new (and ugly) building, then it's most likely something unconstitutional. So, first thing we do is blow up the new buildings (with or without the government parasites inside - your choice) and kill that department/agency/bureau whatever. Then, if the budget still won't balance and the deficit is still a problem, we can revisit this idea of raising taxes. More likely, we wind up with a tax cut.
all control all the time means no growth, and relative collapse. It doesn't matter what the robots representing robots do. Bernanke now has complete control over empire perception, but to what end, except capital bidding up the cost against itself, with an increasingly obsolete middle class, in a self-liquidating system, and the sh-show continues....
CROCK OF WARM SHIT
The problem is not the "system" or "plan". It is corruption. Any increase in revenues will be used just as in the past as a "fractional" tax system where every dollar of anticipated or received revenues will be leveraged into ever higher spending. And the last thing we need is more public works spending where "prevailing wage rules" ensure that unions will rule and productivity will be minimized for the good of job security. The only fair revenue system to fund government is through sales tax. One that replaces all other revenues through a constitutional ammendment that makes sure that any transition for income, property and other taxes is fully phased out. Sales tax, not VAT tax, can be made progressive through selective exemptions of basic foods, clothing and housing. And the best part is that it is fully transparent. No guessing who pays what and an end to devisive class warefare put on us by our benevolent leaders. And no IRS. Almost all states have some sales tax system already in place. No tax returns, loopholes, and limited opportunity to cheat. Of course all of these reasons are why "they" will never let it happen.
The job description, "spending other peoples money" attracts certain personality types. They self-select. A lack of corruption is not likely any tme soon.
What a load of bullshit. The usual proposal from the Left: Taxes go up at a dozen points immediately in return for a "framework" for cuts later. Shove that up your ass as far as it will go. This country is broke and your "proposal" does nothing but speed up the pace to the Endtimes. Waste of space and ink, although Obama and the rest of the Dem/Left will get right behnd you.
Sorry, real growth is impossible, death it will be. Bruce showing his true liberal "unicorns and skittles" self. Welcome to the real and very finite planet.
Yes, that's the dividing line between those who are willing to do rational analysis and those who want to keep on playing "maybe Tinkerbelle really can fly". grow is over. done. finished. it's in the same condition as John Clease's famous Parrot, "not either, taking a nap, dammit". Here's an interesintng thought for you; it's politically impossible, of course, like all useful changes; cut off all tax deductions; and especially, churches and tax-exempt "charities". This would get the professional propagandists hired by "green peace" and so forth, to sit down and shut up; because they get paid nice salaries to make up the mis-leading propaganda news-releases about global warming. It would be a small step back from the brink of mass delusion, anyway.
The "debt limit" does no such thing as hold back unchecked spending. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion or a 16 trillion $ debt.
Growth as a means out of unsustainable economics is not possible. Growth demands more money. Since all money is debt then more growth equals more debt..the very heart of the problem.
Taxes are a zero sum game...
You really fail on this one Bruce
But you have to admit; you're not likely to "succeed" in solving an impossible problem. Certainly not with completely conventional nostrums.
Growth or growing our way out of this mess unfortunately ain't gonna cut it.
At best 2% CAPM, more likely 1 1/2 %.
Real growth % = productivity growth + population growth
Check out the savings identity balance.
Can't grow when business and consumers saving AND no growth in wages.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B16Nxp5pgJBzZEdBUGI2cmdzMXc
BY THE WAY, THE NPV OF ALL CURRENT SPENDING AND PROMISED FUTURE BENEFITS REQUIRES A 10% GDP ADJUSTMENT
PER YEAR !!!!! THAT'S 1.5 TRILLION PER YEAR. BIS NUMBERS, NOT MINE.
Bruce so wants to pretend he is not a liberal, but he LUVS TAXES.
OK. Let's get 'er done. TAX THE RICH
New Federal Income Tax Rates - Effective Yesterday
Income tax rate for all Jews 100%
Surtax Schedule - in addition to regular tax
For Jews in the Media 200%
For Jews in Banking 300%
For Jews in Government 400%
Think of it as giving back. As Rufus the Redistributor reminds us daily, the easiest way to get money is to steal it.
Unconstitutional you say? Bull Feces. Know what else is unconstitutional? Affirmative Action, Obama Care, wars by presidential edict, everything Ben does, 20 million Beaners, a permanent welfare class, "Homeland Security", and an illegal alien POTUS who went through college on scholarships for foreign students, so cry me a river. In fact, the only thing still protected by the constitution is abortion. Those who have eyes, let them see.
SO... EAT THE RICH, RISE ABOVE, LEAN FORWARD, MOVE AHEAD........., Bolsheviks Unite.
/sarc..., kinda-sorta...shit's gettin' real
economic growth (or some such quote) will either deal with the deficit , or not
grow (what are you going to grow?) what couldn't be grown cheaper somewhere else? China much more disposable workforce than here.
grow in isolation? then sell to whom?
Maybe you were talking about the Public sector growth?.... sorry bout the sarcasm font.
Keep trying
Who did Henry Ford sell Ford's to? Americans. It's called a national economy; it's more possible at a higher standard of living here than on any other continent or country in the world. Yes; growth in isolation; growth in employment; combined with deflation; which will cause temporary disruptions and problems; but leading fairly quickly to useful economic result. Ideally, exports are great; we'll be able to export some manufactured goods and some basic commodities; but the employment can only be solved by killing "free trade"; and of course; dumping the illegal aliens, whose function for the ruling class is to surpress wages.
Please, please try to understand. When I graduated from High School; we didn't import anything from China. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Okay? do you get it now. It's not necessary to "compete" with China; your country has been sold out from underneath you in the last thiry years or so. the way to take it back; is to cut off China; just order the ships to turn around and go back to China. No ships will be permitted in to dock or unload. Understand, now? It's the opposite of "free trade"; it's protect my own ass and my families ass trade; and fuck you chinaman, you'll just have to get along without all the dollars.
Humm a 1/2 % national sales tax.. how many days until it is 1% then how many weeks until it is 2% ?
Give washington the ability to "tax" and they take it every time way past where it was "promised" to go.
Of course, this is correct. It's a completely deranged suggestion.
Bruce, I must commend you on such a thoughtful piece.
What you are illustrating is the fact that we are led in the US by people who do not take their service to the country very seriously and are instead mostly interested in their re-election and this makes for hazy decisions on their part.
I didn't hear you say anything completely radical here. It's mostly common sense stuff. What is shocking is that the proposals are so shocking! How can it be that being responsible and thoughtful and focused on America is thought of as radical?
If our Congressmen were doing their jobs, these ideas would be mainstream (depending on which stream you swim in, I suppose...) but, more likely had they been on their game helping the country, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
Excellent job, Bruce. I wish the boys and girls on Capitol Hill were half as earnest in our interest as your effort here.
Thanks.
:D
Well, if we're going to wish for things; maybe we shold wish the "boys and girls" on Capitol Hill had adult minds and real educations; might as well.
I think that is what I said.
Did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning or something?
I'll take a stab at this. First off Orly, I admire you and like you. I've been reading your comments for quite a while and I'm impressed by your depth......
But..Idealism is folly at this point. I submit that IN FACT evil is at play. I mean that quite literally and state such intentionally.
These 'people' are not stupid. They are actively and intentionally EVIL.
You only waste your good hearted time attempting to reason with evil.
YOU or Bruce would genuinely seek a solution.
Those who 'manage' this farm only seek to increase the harvest.
Oh, I know that, silly. Just ask falak or ORI where I am in that. From Prescott before the War to a cool Dallas day...
But Bruce still believes that there are "politics" and therefore political solutions to our problems. I just play along. Other than that, the evil-doers must, at some point, at least act like they're doing something positive for America and they do indeed have these hard choices to make.
It's interesting to see the machinations at work, though. If they really wanted to, they could have this thing sewn up in fifteen minutes. If everyone just got the memo, all problems solved like that!
I do appreciate your kind words but the last thing I am is an Idealist.
:D
No shit...Interesting EPJ post just went up not long ago if you haven't already seen it.
Thanks for the civility:)
Nice to hear what a decent American might like to see happen as a step toward untying the knot that we have become. The problem is though Bruce, obama has ZERO interest in untying the knot....ZERO. You seem to be under the delusion that this is really about 'saving/helping America?
Wrong.
Bruce, I generally like your stuff because you focus on fiscal policy, which is my interest.
But the best thing I can say for this diary is that there aren't as many typos as there are typically are.
Ouch..........
He's pretty good at conventional thinking; actually he'd make a useful Federal Bureaucrat. Unfortunately, what is required is very out of the box thinking. 13 Million Illegal Aliens; and a president who pretends not to understand what the word illegal means; after taking an oath to uphold the laws of the country. Cut off imports from China. All of them. 100%; off; stopped; end of game. what does this accomplish? the Spontaneous creation of small business to manufacture things; (but not any business created by government). The failure to understand the difference between Govt. financed "infrastructure projects" and real business if crucial. Didn't we just have some billions of shovel-ready political pay-offs? I seem to remember something like that. "Grow our way out of this"--very serious failure to understand economics and basic math. Growth is over. One of the most serious problems is human over-population; if you wish to save north America than a lot of people need to go back to where they came from; and probably die there. Too bad. That;s the way it goes. The Chinese will probably really miss their taxpayer provided subsidy too; too bad, that;s the way it goes. So, these are big ideas, big changes which are necessary to address big structural problems; but they are not only un-doable, they are un-thinkable. The propaganda in favor of globalism and "free trade" has been very successful. for that matter, millions of people actually believe the planet is growing warmer. It would take a dictator to turn this ship around; I know to do it; but I'm lazy; I don't want to be dictator. but that's really the only hope. Democracies don't work. Other important things that need to be done are to eliminate the alphabet soup in Washington; we don't need a DEA, an FDA, an EPA, a DOE, or even the present dis-functional and hugely inefficient FBI. And, of course, we never did "need" a FED; that was a "need" created by a small group of people who liked to profit from there manipulations of the economy; but it has now got a little out of hand, (sarc.). So, you see; the real solutions are very dramatic and large and involve understanding things correctly that we have been carefully taught to understand up-side-down; in Owellian Speak, so to speak. So; nothing is possible. If you are financially solvent plan on immigrating. If not; move to a remote rural area.
Trade isn't really the problem. The problem is that there is such a huge burden of tax, waste, and corruption that makes productivity so expensive here in the US. The fact that labor is cheaper in China is'nt the problem, it's just a symptom of the expense burdening domestic production. So no, I don't believe that 100% of trade should be closed. There should be some tarriffs to account for China's subsidies to it's domestic production (e.g. China lets them pollute) and to even the playing field a bit, but all trade should not be foreclosed. Instead, we should have a mechanism to allow trade imbalances to settle themselves, such as settling international trade in gold (see here for details: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/07/hugo-salinas-price-an... )
There's a few. Grammatical errors, too. Must be that Eastern European girl who does the typing?! Ha!
:D
haha - I forgot about her. Vasilka or something like that....
The name was Valentina.
Get this, she's online, talking on some chat room. Falls in love with some bozo from West Hollywood name of Armond. Boom. Gone. A fucking bus to LA.
So I have no excuses for the typos.......
I smell a movie, and beaucoup dineros. Already more of a plot than anything Hollywood has had in years. Is that a problem?
The bus comes into LA. Valentina dishelveled from four days hard travel, still looking good. Rents a smart car, and heads for Hollywood, all the time wondering what the hell she is doing and just who is Armond anyway?
Pulls up on Vine, in front of the Star Bucks, getting a latte. Comes out, heads for the rental, cop car flying down the road, screeches to a halt right in front of her.
Two cops come out of the car, heads low, guns drawn. Vanessa, sipping the latte, "What's up boys?"
One cop, no more then 25, cocking his gun, looks up, "The bank across the way is getting robbed!"
Valentina, looking at the bank, thinking to herself, "There's a reason I'm here, and I'm playing this one out."
And then the shooting started.
cut
OMFG. Your talents are wasted, Bruce.
Confess. Did you, or did you not write the piece about the guy sending gold painted rocks to the "Send us Your Gold Now Co? Nearly busted my spleen over that one.
Not me.
But I did like the first two scenes of "our" movie.
Given the "success" of this blog, I'm thinking maybe I should go ahead and write the rest of the story. Maybe I have a shot in Hollywood, looks like I have no chance at government policy and social engineering.
Too bad...
Errmm...no. Stick with wonking.
:D
You can't reform something that is such a bad idea to begin with. It needs to all be shut down.