What could be done to create large scale employment?

It was state regulation and loose monetary policy that caused the current depression and all previous recessions since the introduction of the Federal Reserve.

The regulation in the 50's and 60's was far less than current regulation and taxes are essentially meaningless in terms of economic growth. They make good talking points during elections.

 

Other than making a lot of politicians happy as they hand out more favors to contractors that they will make rich at public expense, of what benefit is that?

 

HMM, Our national hwy system didn't better our country? Upgrade and improve it.
Our airline system hasn't improved our country? Upgrade and improve it.
Our railway system hasn't improved our country? Upgrade and improve it.
Our internet system hasn't improved our country? Upgrade and improve it.

Our national parks don't improve quality of life? Upgrade and improve them.

 

We'll it's been worse before of course. That in no way disproves my argument that extending welfare is keeping people from participating in the labor force. You'd have to be brain dead to think extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and putting everyone on food stamps isn't having an effect on the laborforce.

Also, the graph you linked doesn't do the Obama administration's failure on the economy justice. It keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

Here is a current graph.

Notice when it starts to really go down is right around the time the stimulus passed. So if you answered 'infrastructure spending' as the solution. You just demonstrated that reality has no bearing on your political beliefs and you need to stop plaguing the forums with nonsense.

 

Loose monetary policy (i.e. interest rates that were kept too low) did contribute, sure; it fueled whatever bubble was about to come along. However, it is a fact that the deregulation efforts of the 80s, 90s and 2000s explicitly allowed previously prohibited activities. It is also a fact that those activities created the recent housing bubble.

 

I think that's basically what I said. Demolishing supply increases demand.

 

The housing bubble was a product of legislation, mortgage lenders simply exploited the rules for profit. Also, the housing bubble hasn't fully popped yet, there's more economic downturn to come.

 

Your link isn't functioning.
Where did I say obama's admin has improved the labor participation rate?
Keeping with bushes economic policies isn't really improving anything.
Why was the stimulus again? Because we just had a massive crash in housing? Of course when economy crashes and layoff occur labor is affected.

 

I am not a Conservative or a Liberal. I am a true Independent. If I listed my druthers, you'd see that I tell you the truth.

Do not miss the obvious. Only one thing can cause companies to hire- the opportunity to make more money if they hire more people. If a company has a good idea on how to make more money, they will aspire to accomplishing that idea.

And if they have the money to accomplish this idea, they will probably try it. If they try it, and if the idea needs employees to accomplish it, then they will be forced to hire. Hence unemployment will go down. This is the only way to make unemployment go down.

If the companies do NOT have the money, they will NOT be able to accomplish the idea OR to hire employees.

So my idea is, get money to the companies. That would be the opposite action to TAKING money from the companies.

My other idea in consequence is, let Obama tell the companies, "We will lower your taxes if you will spend 90% (or whatever) of the money you get therefrom on expanding, and hiring employees." (details to be worked out in another post, perhaps)

 

Mortgage lenders encouraged the rules for profit. Many changes occurred in the 90s and 00s that I'm quite sure mortgage lenders had a hand in changing.

Do you think the gov't change rules for something to do?

 

The infrastruction in the country is in very bad shape. While we have idle labor an excellent application of that idle labor would be to refurnish or rebuild some of that infrastructure.

 

Administered by state govts or the federal govt?

 

The creation of the internet was tax payer funded. This point illustrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

No kidding. This should likely be the FIRST place to put people to work.

 

So you're saying that the internet never would have been created if it hadn't been for taxpayer subsidies?

 

The rules were changed to allow people with no money or credit to buy houses WAY out of their means.

Government caused the bubble and the crisis.

 

The more that power is given to smaller govt instead of large, the better- except in cases of defense.

And this smaller govt. thing taken to the extreme will ultimate in the smallest govt.- that of self-govt, personal responsibility.

And if there was enough small govt, (personal responsibility), it would hugely decrease the amount of larger govt needed, wouldn't it?

 

So was every war the US fought... what's your point?

 

Repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with an amendment authorizing a consumption tax with prebates on new goods and services.

Estimates on the reduction of the costs of good and services produced in the US by eliminating the embedded costs related to income taxes paid by enterprise range from a very low 10% to well over 20% depending upon who provides the numbers. In either case a lower cost for US produced goods and services provides a huge marketing advantage to US enterprise in international markets. That translates into more exports of US goods which, in turn, requires more Americans in the manufacturing trades which are typically the highest paying jobs.

Literally tens of millions of jobs would be generated within a very short period of time with this one simple change in how taxes are levied on Americans.

 

*looks at history*

The government is a HUGE producer of jobs. Teachers, Lawyers, Politicians, etc.

 

Another thing we could do to lower unemployment would be to get rid of the minimum wage.

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent article on such today, http://news.investors.com/ArticlePr...4/minimum-wage-disaster-young-poor-black.aspx

 

Where does it get the money to employ these people? From the private sector. The money it allocates from the private sector to create these jobs would have been used in the future for investment, job, and wealth creation. Bureaucratic dictation of the allocation of resources is far less efficient than free market allocation of resources. This does not actually create any new wealth, it simply redistributes existing wealth. The only thing that can create new wealth is real productivity and real technological improvement, which is done most efficiently by the private sector and without the mishap of the government-created business cycle.

 

That is a pretty ignorant explanation of youth unemployment. There is no telegram delivery jobs these days, zero, none, but I guess that has nothing to do with it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/miller-gingrich-space-policy/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular
Here's an article about gingrich and his moon colony. In the article are a couple of references where gov't spurred an industry that pvt enterprise deemed to risky.

In 1844, Asa Whitney (cousin of cotton gin inventor Eli Whitney) proposed to the U.S. Congress that America build a transcontinental railroad. U.S. Sen. Thomas Benton of Missouri responded that it was "an imposture, a humbug; it could have emanated only from a madman ... science was unequal to overcome the Allegheny Mountains -- and now Whitney proposed to scale the Rocky Mountains, four or five times as high! Why sir, it's madness!"... "You are one hundred years before your time."

In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward proposed that America purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune mocked Seward, calling it "a frozen wasteland." Alaska became known as "Seward's Folly." It was one of the best investments America ever made.

Just a few things from the article gov't did to spur our world today.

 

Not really. The free market is often spectacularly inefficient in the allocation of resources, market bubbles for example.