Just change the economics and the politics will be righted. The top 10 flaws of neoclassical economics 1. Money monopoly = free market Neoclassical economics calls our current system under a private monetary monopoly a free market. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. The monetary system is an overlay on top of the economic system. Economic systems create value through market activity, but the monetary system on top of them determine who captures that value. Neoclassical economics completely ignores the overlay and the fact that it is controlled by an entrenched private monopoly. 2. Ignores that money comes from nothing but debt Economics does not address the fact that all money comes from debt. It assumes that base currency (M0, core money) is just a free-flowing medium of exchange that apparently comes from the US Treasury. It does not. It comes from the Federal Reserve backed by debt. 3. Ignores the artificial scarcity condition Economics ignores how a debt-based monetary system imposes scarcity on countries and populations. There is never enough money to pay back all the debt, so everyone is forced to jump on the hamster wheel, scrambling to find more money to pay back debt. This dynamic is perpetual. It never stops until the system crashes. It need not be this way. 4. Equates net worth with value creation Economics ignores how the financial class and others serving the upper end of the capital structure capture more money simply because they have entrenched power. They extract value. They do not create it. Economics is correct that participants in the economic system create value, but it misses the fact that the monetary system on top of the economic system determines who captures that value. 5. Assumes free, rational, economic actors by ignoring power differential of debt The power differential caused by the monetary system is ignored by economics. This is the only reason the system is erroneously called a “free market.” The monetary system is entirely centripetal, sucking all power to the center, the top tiered financiers. People are in servitude in a very controlling market, not a free market. 6. Ignores the instability of having a pure debt-based monetary system Economists ignore that the economic system is guaranteed to boom, bust, and eventually end because the monetary system on top of it is completely unstable and fundamentally flawed. It depends upon increasing debt. It cannot increase forever, and it can collapse to zero since people have no sovereign money. 7. Ignores the wealth illusion By not addressing the issue of debt-based money, economics fools people into believing the digits in their bank accounts represent wealth. The fact is they represent a conditional liability, i.e. somebody else’s debt. This becomes obvious during deflation. The illusion is reinforced during inflationary periods. 8. Ignores perpetual exponential growth Economists inconceivably ignore the most severe flaw of the monetary system that drives our economic system—it requires exponential growth. This guarantees eventual failure, but neoclassical economics conveniently assumes that problem away. 9. Ignores perpetual increasing scale As a result of perpetual exponential growth, institutions in the system continually get bigger and bigger. We saw this as the economic system made towns, counties, and states irrelevant through the last century, and we are now seeing it as mega banks and corporations are now making national governments irrelevant. People are now living as tiny cogs in a machine of incomprehensible scale. Everything in life has been monetized, so things that don’t generate bank credit get devalued (spirituality, psychology, rest, joy, play, etc). 10. Ignores perpetual increasing velocity Another problem from exponential growth is perpetually increasing velocity. The system has to chug faster and harder as it continues to grow. This means human life has to chug faster and harder. The most obvious manifestation of this is the endless, hectic commutes every morning to jobs we despise. We feel frustration, sometimes rage, toward our fellow commuters. That is just one small example of how systemic velocity affects the human spirit. link
If I could, I would separate power from money within our government. Because of the way our country's campaigning process is done, the end game for interest groups for supporting a candidate is MONEY. Massive amounts of money poured in by interest groups for the self-serving goal of begetting more money. Blake had some good ideas about getting rid of lobbyist and allowing a finite amount of money for campaigning. Require a competency test for congresspersons. They should have a minimum of a master's in certain subjects that are necessary for governing. I really don't understand why most companies would ask for a standard level of qualification while we let someone with a community college degree in art make policies for the whole country. If you don't have a master's degree and want to run for office, take two to four years off to go back to school THEN run for office. This will at least show the candidates are committed enough, if not qualified enough. Sure there are college drop outs that are capable like Bill Gates but by far, it would be more beneficial.
if the O-Gov's constitutional justification for ObamaCare holds, congress could just pass a law mandating everyone vote, with penalties for failing to do so.
1) IMO campaign reform would be a great place to start. For federal races, the federal government should allot a specific amount of money for senate races and a smaller amount for representative seats. No outside money, large or small, would be allowed. That amount could be used for any type of advertising venue the candidate chose, with the stipulation the ads would be solely about the candidate would do or not do without any mention of what his or her opponent would or would not do. Five in-state, hour-long debates on prime time to discuss differences would be paid for by the federal government -- three for representative positions. States would follow suit with the governor's race getting the five slots and the legislative seats getting three slots. Judges would be appointed and confirmed like federal judges but with 10-year terms. 2) Lobbyists are an important information source for legislators at every level. However, no legislator should be allowed access by a single lobbyist, but rather by all the rival lobbyists at the same time and preferably videotaped for pulbic perusal. 3) No corporate executive should be allowed to make more than 250 times the corresponding amount for the lowest paid worker in the company. In other words, if the lowest paid worker (a janitor, perhaps) is paid $25,000 per year, the CEO would make $6,250,000. If the CEO wants more compensation, every worker wins by whatever level they are at. Each position in the company would be allocated a pay grade between 1 (the janitor) and 250 (the CEO). Every employee would be motivated to make sure their company is as successful as possible, especially if each employee earned a bonus based on company profits after-tax, after-shareholder and after-capital investment growth payments were made. 4) Employers who hire an illegal workers would be fined $10,000 per illegal worker per week. More than 10 incidents would require jail time for the employer or employee responsible for the initial hire. I guarantee human relations departments would research new hires very carefully. 5) Legislative bills would reflect action/resolution/law regarding one specific topic. Omnibus bills and riders would be unlawful. I have more but other obligations are pressing.
Excellent post and repped. You're right people hate lobbyists but they are needed I've seen this firsthand. Legislation gets passed and business realizes a small tweak would actually be more effective. They contact the legislator and let them know. The tweak is implemented and business picks up. How else would the legislator know? I was going to post something like #3 as well.
haven't read the other suggestions yet, so i may repeat a few. also, these might not all fall in line with the OP idea. these are just some things i would like to see happen on the national level. first and foremost, instate some protectionism. higher tariffs on imported goods, higher taxes on companies that base high numbers abroad. we need to reestablish our manufacturing base. secondly, reduce government employees and the remaining public employees need to be brought in line with private sector salaries. third, reduce the defense budget, close several foreign bases, and bring the troops home. need to station them somewhere? the southern border could use them. fourth, higher taxes on the millionaires. i can't offer a percentage tax rate, but 45% on $1M and 50% on $2M should be a starting point. fifth (may tie in to #2), close or reshape the EPA, FTA, FCC, FDA, DoE, homeland security. these departments are bloated and should be refined and streamlined. sixth, decriminalize and then tax and regulate narcotics. perhaps mar1juana could be sold in liquor stores, but cocaine requires a prescription. seventh, put the people responsible for the banking/housing collapse in jail. allow these too big to fail banks, and fannie, and freddie to fail. pick up the pieces and rebuild.
Legalize all drugs. Legalize prostitution. Abolish FDA, OSHA, Depts. of Education, Energy, Commerce, HHS, HUD, Labor Abolish National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, the Post Office Sell all stake in Fannie/Freddie/Sallie/GM/Chrysler Abolish the all personal, corporate, payroll, estate, capital gains taxes, replace with a national sales tax.
If there was a need, you wouldn't need to use force to artifically create a need. If someone else can manufacture it for less, more power to them, and cheaper stuff for me. Win-win.
Let's say Goldman Sachs suggests a tweak to the current government. You know that GS were extremely financially supportive of Obama's campaign. This doesn't bother you at all? If this is the only place they are needed (suggesting tweaks), there are at least one hundred better ways to get their input that don't involve lobbying.
I thought you Tea Party types hated regulation and wanted a free market. Now you want government regulations on how much money a company can pay its employees?
You don't get to control political speech. The fact that you want to use force to impose your idea of proper discourse (and that many would agree with you) is disheartening. You don't get to use force to decide what someone's work is worth. As a shareholder, I expect the company to hire the best CEO they can afford. Whenever you cap the price of something below market value, you will get a shortage. You are worth what you negotiate, period.
You wouldn't get a shortage if the cap was there for everyone. What else are these potential CEOs going to do once they decide they don't like the cap? Go into an even lower paying job? Having said that, I agree that such a cap is ridiculous. I would support businesses that made the decision to keep executive salaries under control, but I don't support the government forcing that decision on the company (unless they've recently come looking to the government for a handout).
NAFTA CAFTA, and GAT sure look like winners for the working class in the US. under my plan, we can still import goods, they'll just cost more due to new tariffs. there are two wins here: more manufactured goods made by americans decreasing the trade deficit and putting more people back to work. secondly, it increases revenue for the federal government through the tariffs, and new found income from currently unemployed people. the only negative side to this is that all goods will cost more. face it, the industrial economy was a winner, the service economy has failed.
You must live in Texas. A family of four making $100,000 per year isn't all that well off in NYC, DC, Boston, California, etc. Sure, they're getting by comfortably, but probably not saving very much for the future. BTW, here's one. Adjust income thresholds based on the cost of living at primary residence.
Nationalize banking, health care, energy, and other selected major industries. #3 from thumbs' post with some modification.
I hate hearing this argument. If a family of four making $100k per year is not living comfortably and able to still save something at the end of the year, they're living beyond their means. They need to learn to prioritize and perhaps cut back on some non-essential spending.
Where do you live? And I said they are living comfortably, but are they actually saving ENOUGH for retirement. If you really think someone making 100k has a surplus of money they can afford to give back to the government then you must not live in an area with a high cost of living.
