"Thin air"? The contract is backed by cash and there are 2 parties at risk.
Errand of Mercy
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
"Thin air"? The contract is backed by cash and there are 2 parties at risk.
You know, the next logical question, assuming you believe my thesis, is, what is the most efficient way to spend a dollar in terms of jobs created, i.e., where does it have the greatest multiplicative effect on jobs?
An iPod costs say $300. If I were to break that $300 up, what is the most effective way to create jobs? Maybe it is an iPod, I don't know. I wonder if someone has done this study...
An iPod costs say $300. If I were to break that $300 up, what is the most effective way to create jobs? Maybe it is an iPod, I don't know. I wonder if someone has done this study...
Back in the 70's it was thought that one high paying job created six low paying jobs to service the high roller. I'll volunteer. I have been out of work so long my wife makes me say I am retired.
What you describe is why Henry Ford said he needed to pay his workers decent wages - so they could buy his cars.
But now it is all about skimming the maximum off the profits for your bonus.
Somebody had mentioned building a highway from Mexico to Canada. Sounds dumb - until you read about the longshoreman's strike in Calif. Then docking in Mexico and using Mexican truckers to move goods north makes sense.
But what if those workers instead spent it on a pair of jeans? Then maybe Target does better and hires more people. Those people need to get to work, so they buy a Ford Fiesta. The point is the more money is in peoples hands, either those you pay directly or indirectly, if that money is given to working people eventually that money is spent.
I am seriously thinking the US government should tax the shit out of you and I mean disgustingly so, 75% or more if you make >$150k a year, but give huge breaks if you spend. The problem is you have to save every receipt, but you know what, this printing your receipt in the age of computers is an anachronism. This will light a fire under most peoples ass to spend and consume. Saving for a college education should be tax free.
The problem with this sort of thing is that it is transient. You want to do these projects for sure, but it is the little things that add up when we all do it and cooperate and are incentivised correctly.
A scientist sees this as a Dynamic Programming problem. You have a scarce resource that you are trying to optimize, your paycheck. You then have the constraints:
1) Save for college education
2) Save for retirement
3) Save for bills
4) Save for a rainy day
Then you ask yourself, how does a government incentivise it's people so that, after the above is taken care of, they spend their money helping create jobs? Of course, this is in theory what Economic models tell you.
Is this even the right way to go about it?
1) Save for college education
2) Save for retirement
3) Save for bills
4) Save for a rainy day
Then you ask yourself, how does a government incentivise it's people so that, after the above is taken care of, they spend their money helping create jobs? Of course, this is in theory what Economic models tell you.
Is this even the right way to go about it?
You are talking about a bottom-up approach. The approach by D.C. and corporations is top-down (trickle-down).
D.C. likes the top-down approach because they get to spend the money first, before it becomes inflationary and worth less as it works its way through the economy.
The boom in the '90's was from the computer revolution, putting more money into the hands of the middle-class. Consumption went up and became a virtuous cycle. Greenspan kept spiking the punchbowl to blow a bubble though. Investment became mal-investment Then poof.
You just have to think in terms of - if YOU were controlling mega-money, what would YOU be doing to keep that control. What laws would YOU want passed that would cement your control. Then you can see why legislation is made/paid-for the way it is.
D.C. likes the top-down approach because they get to spend the money first, before it becomes inflationary and worth less as it works its way through the economy.
The boom in the '90's was from the computer revolution, putting more money into the hands of the middle-class. Consumption went up and became a virtuous cycle. Greenspan kept spiking the punchbowl to blow a bubble though. Investment became mal-investment Then poof.
You just have to think in terms of - if YOU were controlling mega-money, what would YOU be doing to keep that control. What laws would YOU want passed that would cement your control. Then you can see why legislation is made/paid-for the way it is.
Are you trying to lob one up for a small government free market person...
I keep waiting for you to say - this is why we invented money and this is why the founding fathers set up america the way they did.
We let the market determine the most efficiency distribution of resources. (that is what money can do)
And the job of the governments job is to restrain monopolies, keep our people safe and to get involved when it is impossible to price our natural resources efficiently... such as ocean and air pollution.
As a side note I realize that a Founding Fathers were genius when they set it up so the feds were financed through tariffs. We must return to that system. Tariffs are far better for country than income tax.