What could be done to create large scale employment?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/miller-gingrich-space-policy/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

I already posted this link, but for your viewing pleasure. The gov't has produced millions of jobs and spurred economic booms.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, the gov't change the rules, but IMO, at the request of banksters and mortgage companies. Not the other way around.

 

All money comes from the private sector. Money is the representation of products or services. It starts with the 'work' (aka time spent) of individuals and is coordinated by what we call companies. These companies of course take a cut for their 'coordination' services from individuals who PAY for the products or services generated by the original individuals.

Government is nothing but another company.
If you don't like big "corporations", you shouldn't like the big "corporation" called big government.

 

Very true, I don't like anything to big. Gov't or corps. They all end up with to much control and power.

 

Originally Posted by hoytmonger View Post
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.

No disagreement necessary. I take it you mean that the banks "bribed" the govt to change the rules. That's likely, I agree. But it is the govt's responsibility not to take the bribes or 'encouragement'. It was the FORMER govt's responsibility to have rules in place AGAINST the act of loaning money to those who can't pay it.

Clearly the govt's fault. Anyway, that's why they are called the GOVERNment. They are there to govern banks and everyone else.

Banks shouldn't be greedy, morally speaking, but you can't force them out of greed. You can only regulate them out of the ability to exercise greed.

The politicians can screw things up, and they're the ones who can pretty much fix everything.

That's why we need an amendment which says that in order to vote, you have to pass a small test, (in English, IMO) which makes sure you understand the issues in general and who stands where on those issues.

Our politicians are the country's human version of Saviours. They must be elected to be knowledgable and HONEST. Term limits are a must. And equal financing for all candidates. They must NOT be able to BUY the office.

 

You seem to be assuming that mortgages were never bundled and sold off until the repeal of those two provisions of Glass Steagall. That's not true. The mortgage for my house was sold long before then.

I'm not sure where you are getting the high interest rate mantra. Interest rates have been at historic lows throughout the period of the repeal of those provisions.

Banks did put themselves in a bad position by buying bundled mortgage securities, but again, that has nothing to do with with those provisions of Glass Steagall. That has to do with a massive resell market for mortgages that the banks could always sell to. So their incentive to carefully scrutinize their loan standards was nil. They knew they could always sell them.

Now, what does this have to do with Glass Steagall? Still nothing. You've yet to make that case.

 

It was at the request of the liberal elite that believe owning a home is a right. Starting with Carter and expanded by Clinton (with some help from Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo).

 

So which part of my post are you taking issue with again? Are you stating that Obama's stimulus was effective or are you trying to claim the stimulus was an extension of Bush's policies?

Anyway, government spending if anything hurts the economy.

 

Did it? It's not axiomatic that upgrades and improvements will have noticeable economic impact now, or in the future.

The airlines seem to handle all the travelers who want to fly. If there are improvements to be made, they are the ones best equipped to determine what those should be.

Railway travel is heavily subsidized, and railway cargo has trouble finding enough customers, leaving much of the system idle.

Also seems fine to me. Subsidizing access to higher bandwidth for people isn't going to increase economic capacity, it simply transfers wealth from some to others.

Is quality of life an economic good?

 

That was a pretty ignorant attempt at a rebuttal.

 

Market bubbles of any serious magnitude rarely occur in a free market, and when they do, they do not have spillover effects. It takes government to create "spectacular" bubbles that lead to economy wide downturns and collapse Even the tulip craze of the 17th century would have fizzled out but for the government intervention which arbitrarily cancelled all contracts and made paupers of many.

 

I, and others in this thread have repeatedly shown you how Glass-Steagall was partly to blame for this financial mess. Go troll somewhere else.

 

Furthermore, if there was a massive resale market for mortgages, how does that change the fact that the firewall in Glass-Steagall separating securities operations and lending operations would prevent those resold mortgages from being combined to create MBS's? Where is the proof that such a resale market was not regulated by the law?

 

That would make sense, if we were to also dismantle Big Land Rent so that it couldn't immorally transfer large amounts of wealth and resources to itself, that way resources could be allocated to the private sector and people could afford to live somewhere.

 

Don't bother explaining anymore. If Lil Mike isn't going to get it by now, he never will. That or he is attempting to troll us. Either way there is no more need for us to explain anymore.

 

I explained my side already. I am waiting for him to provide proof to back up the claim that a mortgage resale market allowed for the creation of MBS's. If that is the case, then he must show how such a market was unregulated or at the very least under-regulated by Glass-Steagall.

 

Don't count on it. He is just going to deflect the question and continue to say that we haven't provided any proof. I'm finding that its what most people do here when they have been proven wrong.

 

I posted a link 2X in this thread about a story on gingrich and his moon colony. In that article it showed how gov't funding made possible many things we have today that we wouldn't had if they hadn't invested in it.
The pvt industry didn't see enough pay back quick enough to bother. So, gov't can get an industry going that pvt industry won't touch.

 

Right now, the only thing keeping people out of the workforce is a shortage of jobs.

 

And yet, we can't find people willing to be truck drivers for 60-70k a year.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/13/141325299/a-labor-mismatch-means-trucking-jobs-go-unfilled

We also can't find welders or plumbers or any other high paying dirty or hard job.

Why take a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty job when you can take an easy low paying job and have the government half support you? According to the article I linked above, we have 5 million jobs unfilled in this country.

 

Bwahahahaha!

I remember when employment was at it's highest and burger flippers were making over minimum wage just be able to fill the slot.

People that didn't want to work or knew nothing about work were in many of those positions and bad service was normal.

 

What percentage of people unemployed do you think are getting unemployment?

 

Yes, it is the gov't responsibility to protect people. But they don't. Why? A big subject for discussion and usually gets bantered around in almost every thread.
Many say, and I agree, it has to do with big money floating around in the form of campaign contributions. Bribes.

 

So, Can you imagine what would happen if we got rid of the minimum wage?

I would bet all major companies would collude together and lower wages of their employees substantially, While at the same time either keeping them working the same amount of work or even more.

So, the same or greater level of work, for less pay and benefits?!

And you believe the average American will accept this, Why?

Thank you for your time.

 

Latest number I can find is for April 2011, and 8.4 million were collecting unemployment benefits. http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/12/news/economy/government_safety_net/index.htm

So I'd guess about 2/3rd of people unemployed are collecting.

You really had no idea it was that high did you?