Why are people not focusing on the main issues with the economy?

Sales taxation, inflation, public sector ability to enforce it's will on a whim, increasing allowing of businesses to use oppressed/desperate people to quickly drop the prices of labor down to where millions are going unemployed within a short few years' time (it's too abrupt of a change), and encouraging unproductive people to reproduce, are the 5 major issues with the health of the economy.

Why are people not focusing on those 5 issues? 5 issues. The Big Five. Those are what we need to focus on.

-Sales taxes artificially increase the price-thus artificially decreasing the supply and artificially decreasing job opportunities and profits-of goods and services. Plain and simple. Abolish them completely.

-Inflation...eh anyone with half a brain knows why inflation is evil. Abolish the FED and go back to the gold/silver standard.

-public sector employees are usually not nearly as productive as they get paid for. They can legally force people to pay them for services they didn't ask for. Their tyranny is mainly pissing me off in the form of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Big Tyrannical Police and Military State, and the monopoly on education, training and CREDENTIALS (every employer for engineers demands that you have a college degree that is simply too unnecessarily bogged down inefficiently and cost-wise).

-the previous three were rightist ideals, but this is a leftist ideal: why not actually go back to protectionism, that way our economy doesn't drop millions of American jobs in a few years? When THAT abrupt of a change in employment happens for any nation, problems happen. People get desperate and revert to crime. It's not completely their fault, it's also these people who go meglomaniacal with outsourcing.

-excessive welfarism resulting in, basically, the encouragement of fairly unproductive people to reproduce, is retarded for (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious reasons. No, that doesn't make me a civil/social tyrant. It makes me sane and rational.

Discuss..

 

Want to start a movement about it? or just discuss and listen to people try to correct you?

 

People trying to correct me on should-be-obvious points will entertain me, at least. But I just wanna live a fun/amusing life for a while longer and then take a few mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ers out with me as I go to the land of eternal peace I have no interest in helping anyone because I hope the human race fails (after I'm gone, of course). I simply have ideological preferences..for some weird reason.

 

LOL, I hear you... seems too many in USA are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed in the head. must be something they put in our food or or just decades of brainwashing on television.

 

They tend to be myopic and moreover put blame on some "group" of people rather than focusing on actual solutions to real problems.

Not to mention, they lack the intelligence to see what are the real problems and what solutions are plausible/optimal.

 

You got three of the five right.

 

Why can we still afford a non-specifically enumerated and extra-Constitutional War on Drugs during times of lowering Taxes and therefore not real times of war? And, why did that not make your list.

 

All the movements that I've seen, correct. that is why I said "start our own movement".

 

Is there enough gold and silver floating around in the world to support the world economy. Someone estimated that all the gold in the world was worth only $15 trillion at today's prices.

The world turned against specie for a reason.

 

It doesn't have to be gold or silver. The point is to back it up with SOMETHING.

 

Aren't you supposed to be conservative? Yet you love inflation..why????

 

We should be focusing on ensuring employment of resources in any given market, as a matter of routine bureaucracy on the part of our governments in order to provide for the general prosperity and therefore the general welfare under our republican form of Government.

 

Yeah, it makes it difficult for politicians to load up a nation with debt. It also makes it difficult for bankers to take excessive risks as a government is generally unwilling to go into debt to bail them out when it can't then turn around and inflate itself out of that debt. It also makes war and standing armies more expensive.

The implication of your argument is that the more money there is, the wealthier the people can be. Is that correct, or can you answer why it matters what is the quantity of money in an economy?

 

I find it funny as hell when I go to tea party rallies and listen to 90% of the people there pulling (*)(*)(*)(*) out of their ass and know nothing about the economy or taxes. I have found that about 2% of the people at the rallies know what they are talking about, and that 2% tends to be the college educated ones who the reps call elite and evil.

 

As a main issue during times of lowering Taxes and therefore, not real times of war; why can we still afford a War on Drugs?

 

Sorry about the only movement most people are capable of starting occurs right after a double dose of exlax.

 

Because people pleasuring themselves is much worse and destructive of a crime than the U.S. military and police violently attacking peaceful people. Ask The Right as to why this is.

 

The OP is close to addressing the problem but is off a little bit so I'll address these issues individually:

All forms of taxation increase the "cost of living" and reduce the "standard of living" but taxation is necessary. The federal government is actually prohibited from imposing a direct sales tax on the People. Direct taxation on the people can only be apportioned (based upon the population such as everyone having to pay a $1000 federal tax annually) under the conditions of Article I Section 8 or based upon income under the 16th Amendment. Of note sales taxes are local and state taxes and four states don't have any local or state sales taxes but the residents of those states don't appear to be better off economically than other states.

Income taxes, both state and federal, are far more negative as far as the economy goes. An income tax reduces the standard of living before even the first dollar is spent by the individual. Payroll taxes, which are an "income tax" imposed on enterprise based upon the wages of employees, increases the costs of goods and services by somewhere between 10% (the lowest estimate) and as much as 25% (the highest estimate) which is much more than any sales taxes.

Under the laws and Constitution of the United States we're still technically on the gold standard but many don't seem to understand this. Nixon did not remove the US from the "gold standard" in 1971 but instead he withdrew the US from the Bretton Woods agreement that established a fixed rate of gold by weight to the USD. In 1974 under President Ford the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 was repealed and effectively re-established the "gold standard" in the United States. Under Contract Law and Title 12 the Federal Reserve is supposed to be redeeming Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" where are legal tender coins being produced by the US Mint (since 1985 those are American Eagle coins). The Federal Reserve refuses to redeem Federal Reserve notes in lawful money and the US government refuses to enforce the laws of the United States requiring it.

Inflation is actually a misnomer when we address Federal Reserve notes. All promissory notes are discounted in the free market based upon the ability of the holder of the note to obtain that which the note promises. Like all promissory notes in the free market Federal Reserve notes are discounted based upon the ability of the individual to obtain that which is promised. Federal Reserve notes promise redemption in "lawful money" but, as noted, we can't currently redeem those notes in "lawful money" as our government refuses to enforce the laws related to the "contract" established by a promissory note. Federal Reserve notes are currently discounted by more than 97% and we call that "inflation" but in reality it's merely the discounting of a promissory note. The actual "lawful money" (i.e. American Eagles being produced by the US Mint) has not really lost purchasing power which would qualify under the term "inflation" but many aren't aware of this.

This addresses numerous issues and some statements are false. Yes, there is a problem with government agencies simply submitting to the demands of "public employee" unions in contracts.

For example in education the "Teachers Unions" have imposed unreasonable stipulations in their contracts over time. As an example it does not require a person with a four year degree to teach most K-6 classes. This knowledge is held by a lot of people without a bachelor's degree. How hard is it really to teach simply math for example. This is not to "pick on teachers" but instead to simply provide an example. The school district did not have to accept the contractual provisions of the unions and it's the government agencies that must be condemned and not the unions. The unions only have the interests of their members in mind but the government should have the interests of the people in mind.

Of note, having been in aerospace for decades a college degree is not required for most engineering positions. The hiring criteria is "education or equivalent experience" with two years of experience equating to a year of college. A person can actually obtian a PE (professional engineer) certification by taking a test with zero college education. A lot of home study would be involved because the test of a PE is extensive but it can be done.

Protectionism doesn't work because we depend on a world economy. The basic assumption is that any "protectionism" we impose will be receprocated by the countries we affect with it. For example, a 10% tariff on our imports will result in a 10% tariff on our exports by other countries. That harms rather than helps us. There is another way to address this though.

Advocates of a national consumption tax to eliminate the income tax (i.e. repeal and replace the 16th Amendment) note that we are imposing non-value-added costs on US produced goods and services. The US can easily compete for foreign nations when it comes to the production of goods and services if we eliminate non-value-added taxation inherent in the costs of our goods and service. A consumption tax also imposes the identical tax on all goods and services consumed in the United States. Currently foreign goods and services are not subjected to the cummulative 10%-25% increase in the costs of US produced goods and services imposed by payroll taxes alone. That's why Chinese goods are so cheap at Walmart. Because a national consumption tax is imposed on all new goods and services it is not identified as being "protectionist" so it doesn't generate a receprical action by foreign countries. It also reduces the costs of our exported goods by the 10%-25% giving the US a huge competitive edge in international trade. This has been addressed in other thread so I won't go into the details here but a consumption tax replacing an income tax eliminates the "export of jobs" and results in the "export of goods" adding millions of jobs to the US economy.

This is rather limited in addressing "welfare" and I would disagree that it encourages people to reproduce but there is certainly a problem with "welfare" but I would cite that the problem is more properly addressed by looking at Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Social Security originated in the 1930's when the problem of about 1/2 of the working population did not have the presonal wealth to provide for their own financial security when they retired. Personal wealth generates income and 1/2 of the people simply didn't have the wealth to provide income for themselves. Social Security, instead of addressing the problem of a lack of personal wealth required to provide income, instead attempted to mitigate the the fact that people were poor (i.e. in poverty) by providing income in the form of welfare. Social Security addressed the symptom (i.e. a lack of income) as opposed to the problem (i.e. a lack of personal wealth that would provide income).

In the 1960's an identical problem was identified. About 1/2 of the people didn't have the personal wealth to provide an income which would allow them to purchase health insurance. Once again our government address the symptom (i.e. a lack of income) as opposed to the problem (i.e. a lack of personal wealth that would provide income).

In the 1930's if FDR and Congress would have addressed the actual problem which was a lack of personal wealth accumulation over the working career of the life of a person by initiating mandatory long term diversified and age adjusted retirement investments then by the 1960's the people would have accumulated enough personal wealth to be able to afford health insurance and Medicare would not have been necessary at all. One welfare program simply created an new welfare program because our goverment attempted to mitigate the affects of poverty as opposed to addressing the elimination of poverty.

This is the foundation for the movement behind "privatizing" Social Security today. Address the problem which is a lack of personal wealth as opposed to addressing the symptom which is a lack of income because individuals don't have personal wealth.

 

I have and repeatedly have been asking the Right, why they feel that resorting to abomination of hypocrisy and that form of worship of Lord Satan and that form of endorsement of His regime on Earth, is more socially acceptable than merely and simply bearing true witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of that form of "moral absolutism". They keep avoiding the question, which is also a form of fallacy and "sin" against the discovery of sublime Truth value through argumentation and philosophy.

 

Under US statutory law the United States is still on the Gold Standard and to redeem just the national debt in American Gold Eagle coins based upon Congress "regulating the value thereof" of coined money it requires roughly 300 billion ounces of gold to mint into US Gold Eagles just to cover the national debt.

 

The world's entire stock of gold is less than the300 billion ounces needed to pay off the US debt.

That stock of gold is far too paltry to support global commerce. That's why it was reduced to its current status.

 

This is a problem of Congress not requiring the Federal Reserve to comply with US statutory laws and nothing more. The Federal Reserve, under Title 31, is supposed to be ensuring that all US legal tender has approximately the same purchasing power and that it is supposed to be redeeming Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" which are legal tender coins being produced by the US Mint (American Eagle coins which are legal tender) under Title 12.

This failure to enforce both federal statutory law by the US government has created the problem we face today and the refusal of Congress to fulfill it's delegated responsibilities to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" but this same delegated role of Congress can mitigate the problems the failure to enforce the laws has created related to our monetary system.

Congress needs to redefine the "value" of money by passage of a new law similiar the the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 to bring our monetary system under control. It cannot redeem the Federal Reserve notes that promise redemption in American Eagle coins based upon the current "value" of those coins as established in 1985 so it needs to redefine the "value" of the coins.

I ran a rough calculation based upon US gold reserves and the national debt and a one ounce gold coin needs to be re-designated as $5000 in USD. The US government (and Federal Reserve) can redeem Federal Reserve notes at face value if a $5000 American Eagle coin contains one ounce of pure gold (currently a $50 American Eagle contains one ounce of pure gold). At least this would cover the US national debt of $15 trillion based upon gold reserves held by the US government.

People will rightfully note that gold is only selling for between $1500-$1600/oz but if the US government were to start purchasing gold to mint $15 trillion in gold to repay it's debt then the "value of gold" will quickly rise to that $5000/oz USD value. A person should be able to ask for either a gold or silver coin from the bank and just supplying the banks with enough gold and silver coins would drive of the "price" of gold and silver dramatically based upon supply and demand. Obviously species coins with demonimations less than $5000 would be created and a $500 gold coin would contain 1/10th of an ounce of gold and we would need a $100 silver coin containing an ounce of silver (based upon the current 50:1 gold to silver market value) and probably a $10 silver coin with 1/10th oz of silver.

The point, after all of the math, is that the Congress can stabalize our monetary system and has a Constitutional responsibility to do so.

 

The existence of the EPA is evidence that Congress is not doing its stated function.

 

Back on the original topic, there are two reasons so many people don't want to discuss the economy:

1) Any discussion of the economy makes Obama loss horrible
2) Any serious discussion of the economy comes to the inescapable conclusion that excessive regulation, excessive litigation, and excessive taxation are strangling the economy and to reduce those is to reduce government

 

The world economy should be "supported" by competing currencies, not just gold and silver. This means currency could be backed by any form of wealth, be it gold or shares of a company.