jump to last post 1-50 of 51 discussions (195 posts)

What is your solution for Joblessness in America?

  1. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Give me your opinions.

    It's completely open for discussion.

    I'm looking to see who actually has a grasp on the situation at hand and who is blowing smoke from a political stand point.

    Yes, government spin, deceitfulness, and a lack of knowledge has caused the problem.

    The question is how to fix it?

    Please do weigh in...I am anxious to hear what everyone has to say about it.

    Thank you for your time.

    Cagsil

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image84
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Cags you have a great line of questioning here.  I have no idea what needs to be done.  However, I look forward to reading what others think.  I too am curious about this one.  But I'm not good at politics.  I'd definitively would spout the wrong answers out.

      I actually thought, that America was starting to get a handle on the unemployment situation.tongue

    2. profile image0
      Justine76posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      make the time frame you can claim unemplyment shorter.

      I dont know about everywhere else, but here, in my home town, there are soooo many help wanted signs, and soooo many people sittign around saying.."what? why would I work there when I get more sitting home smoking pot?" Sure, its not an awesome job, but if someone HAD to work becuase there was no other option..geuss what? theyd take that job.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're right and if I may say, some of them are sitting home on their computers complaining about the govt. not doing enough for them!

    3. profile image0
      DoorMattnomoreposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      People who dont have jobs should take the ones they get offered, even if the uniform clashes with thier hair. Honest. I have a freind who turned down the job becuase the uniform did not match her hair. Unemployemnt is way to easy to get.

      maybe I should have read the rest of this before replying....

    4. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The solution is self sufficiency. To become self sufficient you must have a realistic understanding of the world you live in. This means you must understand the difference between what is required versus what is desired.

    5. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Start by firing all the democrats and Obama!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's not even a beginning. wink

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    You know, some people see things, yet don't actually see things. It is sometimes funny.

    I recently published a hub on Joblessness and my answer. But, I'm more incline to see what many people will say about it.

    As for America getting unemployment under control is like saying Elvis has just left the building. Both would be considered an illusion.

    At last checked- unemployment on a National scale was still above 8% or higher. Add that with a poverty level at 13.2% and a homelessness problem ranging in at 13.5%, it creates a very cloudy picture as to what spin comes out of Washington. hmm

  3. IntimatEvolution profile image84
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Urggg!!!

    Frustrating stats, that caused smoke to come out my ears.  Can you spell my brains burning? 

    All that analysis stuff is so beyond my limits.wink

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  4. wyanjen profile image91
    wyanjenposted 7 years ago

    Underemployment has a bigger impact than many realize, I think.
    Salary and/or hours cuts are at the least affecting consumer spending and at the worst, putting folks out on the streets.

    When I hear the phrase "At least he still has a job" I think, damn. Lucky guy, to be working his butt off and he's still going to lose his home. neutral

    My solution:
    This problem is larger than an economic dip. There won't be a magical rebound. Those of us who have lost out so to speak have no choice but to build up something new. From scratch, and by ourselves because there is damn sure nobody to step up and help out.
    We have to invent a new way for ourselves, one person at a time.

    sorry if that sounds corny Ray. or bitter.

    lol

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Jen, you're not far from the truth of the matter. If more people understood the proper way of utilizing America's way of life, then they could better prepare themselves.

      However, this also requires teaching the uneducated, how to do so. Those who refuse to learn, will have only themselves to blame.

      It is not too often an answer is handed to them on a silver platter, so as to give them direction, but they seem to be coming from the direction of entitlement, which is wrong.

      No one, regardless of who they are, is entitled to anything. I find it appalling and absurd.

      Thank you for your response. smile

      1. wyanjen profile image91
        wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Appalling and absurd - exactly.

        It's on my mind quite a bit - those who are feeling entitled, I mean.
        The biggest surprise in these past few years is how many folks fell from moderately high income jobs, straight into poverty. This wasn't a bad turn in the business cycle, this was a fundamental shift that erased the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people.

        As I have, in bits and pieces, lost my nicer things, the idea of entitlement pops in my head. I worked damn hard for the things I had - blood sweat AND tears lol - and it hurts that it was all lost. I did the responsible things, went to school, saved my money, bought a home, blah blah blah blah frickin blah
        All the sacrifices I made to live the "responsible" life were completely wasted.
        My point is - before I start sounding like I feel sorry for myself - I started from zero. Earned a great life, then lost every bit of it. I have NO goddamn sympathy for those who whine and complain about the things they never had to work for in the first place. tongue
        One guy in a store awhile ago was bitching that he couldn't take TWO vacations this year. I so badly wanted to go off on that guy... I was so pissed off I was shaking. He was buying steaks, I was buying ramens.



        Yeah, appalling and absurd - you said it the nice, polite way big_smile

  5. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    I'm a firm beliver in national service. I believe it would be a good way for us to earn college tuition, pay for health care, and save for retirement. If someone became unemployed they could fall back on their national service job for a paycheck. It could end unemployment and welfare you would always have a job to go to either as your benefits job or as your primary when necessary. This could be full time or done similar to National Guard duty. No free rides everyone works, we get service for our taxes rather than the stick in the eye we are getting now.

    The wealthy would have to do a mandatory two years along with everyone else and hold in escrow the money they need to self insure.

    I'm for a bold new direction for America and end the bandaids and the politics.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      National service? Care to elaborate.

      You sound like you're saying everyone should be part of the military in some capacity. hmm

      If that is the case...doesn't that violate right of choice?

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It could be Military service like the National Guard , hospital work, nursing homes, elderly asistance, daycare, disaster relief, smoke jumpers, infastructure projects, border observation posts, disaster prepardness, teacher assistants, park service, enviromental projects and maybe even the constrution and maintenance of a national water system to move water in areas inundated to areas in need.

        I think it's time to move beyond conventional thinking and take America to a completely different plane.

        1. wyanjen profile image91
          wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Y'know you'll be branded a socialist...
          I admire your courage lol

          kidding aside, this could be a very positive thing.
          How soon can we vote?

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The sooner the better! We have to put the labels aside and get to work and put American enginuity to work for everyone. I want everyone to contribute and reap the benefits. That way everyone starts out on the same footing, is included and belongs. This way everyone has some skin in the game.smile

            1. wyanjen profile image91
              wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy096.gif

        2. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Regardless, there wouldn't be enough resources generated. Simply because of the rate of pay for government employees. If an individual isn't subjected to State minimum wage, then they either work for themselves or are employed already by the State or Federal government.

          Those who didn't have a job would be included in the "corp" of people who would be available for those type commitments.

          The worker's pay, would accelerate problems and do more damage than foreseen.

          Why would anyone want to work for a measly job? When they could sign up for other type of work at better pay via "corp" funding by State or Federal government.

          The entire job structure and business model in America would collapse and then what?

          I'm not so sure that would be good? wink hmm

        3. culturalrider profile image61
          culturalriderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know if you realize this, but that line of thinking is terrifyingly authoritarian. You're basically arguing that everyone be forced to work for services that they did not necessarily choose. If that's the case, how is this any different from slavery? You wouldn't support if I mowed your lawn without you asking and then required that you serve me for the next year.

      2. wyanjen profile image91
        wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        National service doesn't have to equate with military service.

        "Civil Service Army" is not a branch of the military. Army is referring to a huge number of people, that's all.
        Like the KISS Army.
        Not so much Marine Corps, more like Peace Corps or AmeriCorps

        It staggers my mind to hear people compare the proposed CSA with mandatory military service. (I'm not talking about you right there Ray. I'm talking about folks who see the word "army" and imagine gun toting soldiers. please pay attention, people)

        tongue
        so much misunderstanding going on

      3. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        America actually holds the soveriegn right to conscription for all males between the age of 18-26. The supreme court would uphold the soveriegn right to subscribe, this was reinstated by Jimmy Carter in 1980. If they imposed this, failure to register within 30 days of your 18th birthday would result in a $250k fine or 5 years imprisonment.....

    2. wyanjen profile image91
      wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Must be one hell of a good idea if you and I agree, Rick wink

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Jen! It's time to take charge of our future and do the right thing for everyone.smile

    3. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You had me until you used the word "mandatory."  I don't think anything should be forced on anyone. I like the idea of part time civil service in lieu of an unemployment check or welfare or recent graduates that just cannot find a job (high school or college).

      "The wealthy would have to do a mandatory two years along with everyone else and hold in escrow the money they need to self insure."

      What benefit would this provide for the wealthy? None I would imagine, and an escrow would be used as another redistribution tap. 

      IMO

      First, immediate benefits for the unemployed would come from lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes. This would encourage companies to foster growth instead hedging against future losses.  Lowering taxes alone will not bring back companies to the US, I'm afraid those jobs are gone for good.  But establishing "zones" (areas of high unemployment) throughout the US that would have a 10 year tax moratorium if companies would build in them and guarantee a minimum employment level  would definitely spur growth and expansion.

      Second, Americans have to do what we are known best for, innovation. We need to develop new products which reflect the "Green" trend this world is demanding. We need to develop or redevelop the dilapidated areas of our nations cities (good civil service projects). And we need to allow our States to take back control of education and get rid of NCLB. We should definitely raise the bar on the minimum national standard but we should also realize that not every kid is going to go, or even want to go to college.

      1. Faybe Bay profile image85
        Faybe Bayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have a green product concept and design but need to know about patents. do I have to build it or is on paper good enough to get started?

        1. livewithrichard profile image85
          livewithrichardposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm pretty sure that in order to get a patent you have to have a working prototype when you submit your design.  Whatever you do, do not use one of those "inventor kits" they are a fraud and a rip off.  Consult with a patent attorney.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        you have some sound reasoning here that makes sense. solutions are out here. innovation is what will change and take us to the future. 
        I think sadly, too many Americans have this mindset of waiting for their 'ship' to come in, this ethereal ship full of wealth and stability. this past year, I've come to the conclusion that this ship is something we must build ourselves.

        I have a sign hanging by my desk that says 'innovation the best way to predict the future is to create it.'

        for some the answer clearly is to build your own business. there are plenty of services people are willing and happy to pay for and many books, resources out there to get help.

    4. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't agree with you very often, sneak, but I am in absolute agreement with you on this.

      It was a huge disappointment for me with Obama's stimulus package that he didn't allocate more money for expanding national service programs. I'd love to see him revive the Civilian Conservation Corps and set up a program to require at least one year of national service for everyone, preferably two.

      I think it would be great job training and would contribute to reviving the sense of national solidarity and willingness to sacrifice that we seem to have lost in recent years, plus if you look at the accomplishments of the Depression-era national service programs, I think it would be a great way to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, rehabilitate wilderness areas, get young and enthusiastic people in teaching and service positions, and more. We as a nation can move mountains - literally - when we're not too busy sitting on our couches eating Cheetoes and watching American Idol reruns. It's long past time to remind ourselves of that.

  6. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    I'll agree - America needs a new direction. That's for sure. wink

  7. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    Goodnight friends I love you all!smile

    1. wyanjen profile image91
      wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sleep good, buddy
      big_smile

  8. profile image0
    jerrylposted 7 years ago

    While you all have good intentions, I would like to know from
    each of you, exactly how any of your solutions could possibly work, without taking the power away from the federal reserve and it's fractional banking debt monetary system?

    Everything is driven by money, but when all we are allowed to use to pay our everyday bills cannot be created without borrowing, there can be no solution.

    I have proposed a solution at times, but most people seem to disappear from the discussion after I present the idea.  I guess
    they do not like their belief system altered.

    It's the monetary system that needs change.  Until that happens,
    no other plan will work.

    1. culturalrider profile image61
      culturalriderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Changing someone's belief system is one of the hardest things you can ever do since people tend to ignore or distort ideas that are different from their own because contradictory ideas make people uncomfortable. There's a lot of ways you can break past that wall, such as trying to get people to answer questions themselves so that they get into your mindset. But ultimately, people won't change their minds if they refuse to absorb your ideas, so in those cases its best to move on.

  9. Greg Cremia profile image60
    Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago

    It is time we put a tariff on imported products. The Chinese government subsidises pretty much everything sold in America for the sole purpose of putting American companies out of business.

    Their plan is working and we are paying the price.

    If imported goods cost more then we will buy American products and American jobs will start materializing.

    Take away the tax breaks for American companies who move their operations overseas and give the tax breaks to companies who keep their workers in America.

  10. World-Traveler profile image59
    World-Travelerposted 7 years ago

    There are a lot of jobs overseas, especially for English teachers.  The problem with joblessness is increasing.  Other country options are appearing more and more attractive to a lot of people.

  11. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    I'm just a work-a-day guy but I think people take more pride in their efforts if they have a piece of the pie. I just think a tie that binds us together as equals sets the stage for bridging the class gap. I'm for everybody who works hard getting a fair shake and if you don't need the extra income you should have the option to opt out. That said, if your ship sinks you should have maintained a reserve for a rainy day. It wouldn't be fair to jump in line with those who payed their dues because you chose to not participate.

    It will take people a lot smarter than me but we need to become a "Super Sociaty" it's what we do and we should continue to climb. Theres room for everyone here. We are leaders and we should lead and not stall out.

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Joblessness is an easy problem to solve.

    All you have to do is blow up every car, plane and every train in the country, and then tell everyone to move to hawaii. be sure to pay them 1 dollar, and then we'll have 100% employment!

    ...

    In all seriousness, just lower the minimum wage - people can't get jobs if they can't produce $7.25/hour worth of goods and services. The reason why you call tech support and get some indian dude is because minimum wage laws have made such a situation profitable. The reason why sweatshops exist is because people in America have been denied the option of working in such situations -- sure it would probably suck, but then again, so does homelessness...

    My solution is to just get rid of Minimum wage - that'd boost employment a few percentage points.

  13. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

      well, in all seriousness, I see what you're saying, but obviously, you don't have a job paying minimum wage. you then create more problems with an unlivable wage. the person has to buy food, pay rent (no way you could own a home on minimum wage) buy gas, pay for car insurance, medical, clothing, kids school supplies, on and on. lowering minimum wage is not a fair solution. hmm, I see you live in Japan?

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ..that term minimum wage has to go...it used to mean something a long time ago...it meant entry level jobs for people with little work experience etc....living wage should be the new term...it's basically almost double what some may call the minimum wage....and unfortunately in some sectors like in the service sector,  it will never fly because a living wage would cut into the shareholders' dividends....short term views by corporations rather than realizing that if they keep their employees happy, they'll stick around, turnover costs will decrease etc...and happy productive employees will help drive the profits up...etc. etc.

      my 2 cents this a.m.

  14. kmackey32 profile image80
    kmackey32posted 6 years ago

    These people on unemployment should have to look for a job and provide proof because alot of them are just saying they are and they are not.. Why would they when they get free money for 2 years. I know this for a fact because my ex was on unemployment and he would just fill in the paperwork not even looking for a job. I know my work is always hiring...

  15. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    OPEN YOUR EYES

    Remember:                          FIGURES DON’T LIE, BUT LIARS FIGURE!

    It has been stated countless times, that (America is the richest nation in the world).  If America is the richest nation, how can we also be the greatest debtor nation in the world? Let’s study this with an open mind!

    For decades, the American worker’s productivity has created immense wealth throughout this nation.
    Look around you!  There are millions of miles of  transportation infrastructure, millions of automobiles and homes.  There are factories galore. We have airlines, ocean liners, railroads, trucking fleets and the largest military in the world. This is all wealth!
    If the American worker created all of this wealth, why are we so far in debt collectively?  Why is approximately 80% of the wealth of the nation owned by about 5% of the population?  Why has such a large portion of our manufacturing base moved to foreign countries?

    We have a total debt of nearly 60 trillion dollars. This includes, corporate debt, personal debt, and government debt, that we are  paying interest on!  The government has another 58 trillion debt in unfunded obligations!  Derivative debt is out of sight!  We have borrowed trillions of dollars from foreign countries to keep this monetary system from sinking.  Much of the borrowed money comes from the same countries that we have moved our manufacturing base to!  We have pumped up their economies, so we can borrow from them.  Ironic!

    The money that corporate America, the government and the public use to pay everyday operating expenses, is called the M1 money supply.  This includes coins, currency and electronic or checkbook money.  Our research has told us that our current M1 money supply totals approximately 13 trillion dollars!  Foreign countries hold about 2/3 of the actual currency.

    The facts above made it apparent, that if all workers are striving to make financial headway and all businesses are operating with profit in mind, that if both are producing, (debt should not enter that equation).  This however is not the case!

    If you keep up with the daily news, you will have noted that this nation is going through financial turmoil.  We can no longer support our schools and libraries. A lot of businesses, large and small, are going bankrupt.   Many pension plans are in trouble!  Many businesses can no longer afford to provide health benefits to their employees!  Foreclosures and bankruptcies are rampant!  Because so many people are unemployed, the government is looking for other ways to tax us!  Divorces are increasing, because stress, due to economic hardship, creates frustrations in relationships! More and more people are frequenting the local food shelves for their sustenance!  Crime is on the rise!  Many cities are becoming nothing more than slums!  We cannot afford to maintain our streets, bridges and tunnels!  Our utility costs keep rising!  Many more people have to go on welfare!  Healthcare and prescription costs are out of sight! People are continually finding that they have less discretionary money to spend!  Students are paying ever increasing costs for their education, only to find out that when they get their degree, their job prospects have been allocated to immigrants who will work for less, or our industries have moved to countries with a cheaper labor force!  Many students are paying for a dead horse!

    The list goes on and I am sure you can think of other areas of concern.  Something is dreadfully wrong!  There has to be a reason for all of these failures!  After exhausting other avenues of investigation, it was decided that a study of our monetary system was in order!

    With this in mind, some of my friends wrote to the U.S. Treasury and the federal reserve, asking the following questions:

    1. How is money created and how does in get into circulation?  The answer they received from Russell Munk, assistant general counsel for the U.S. Treasury was that, “the actual creation of money (ALWAYS) involves the extension of credit from private commercial banks.”   (This means interest bearing loans)! 
    2. If all money is created as debt through loans, where does the money to pay the interest on the loans come from?   The answer they received from Russell Munk was that, “the money to pay interest on loans comes from the same source as all other money”.
    In other words, it has to be borrowed, or captured through commerce, from the debt principal of someone else’s loan that has been spent into circulation.
    3. John M. Yetter, U.S.Treasury stated: “The money that one borrower uses to pay interest on a loan, has been created somewhere else in the economy by another loan”.
    4. John B. Henderson, senior specialist in price economics, congressional research service, the library of congress stated:. “Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred, money is extinguished when loans are repaid.”

    5. Robert H Hemphill, credit manager of the federal reserve in Atlanta stated: “If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation”.       This means, if we have no debt, we have no medium of exchange!

    Keeping an open mind, I am sure you understand that there is a difference between wealth and money. You may have wealth in the equity of your home or vehicle.  You may also have wealth in stocks or bonds.  You cannot spend that wealth!  It has to be converted into money first.   There are only two ways to convert wealth to money.  You may sell some of your wealth to someone, or mortgage your wealth by taking out a loan against that wealth and using it as collateral!  Either way, if the amount is large enough, the banks will be involved and someone will end up paying the bankers interest.

    Whenever someone takes out a loan, that bank creates that money out of thin air.  It credits your bank account with the principal amount of the loan, without any money being created to pay the interest!
    This means that we are always creating a debt greater than the debt money supply.

    Let’s explore this debt monetary system and how it works.  Let’s say that there is no money existing at all.
    We are going to start up, (from scratch), this debt monetary system that we currently operate under.
    I will be the first bank and you the first customer.   You come to me the banker, for a loan.  I require that you sign a loan agreement, which is your promise to repay to me the banker, the loan principal, which I am creating on your signature, plus interest.  By signing this loan agreement, you are mortgaging a portion of your future productivity.  If you have anything of value, I may put a lien on that also.  Now, I the banker, with a stroke of a pen or a touch on a keyboard, create the principal  amount of the loan you requested., which I deposit into a checking account that I have created for you.  I the banker, can loan out around 9 times what I have in reserve. This means that if your request was for $100,000.00, I would only have to have $10,000.00 in reserves. 

    Remember, your loan is for $100,000.00.  Let’s keep it simple and say that I am going to charge you 10%
    Interest on that loan.  Now remember, this is the first time that money is created, and only the $100,000.00 principal of your loan exists.  This means you have a debt to the bank of $110,000.00,
    But only $100,000.00 was created!  How can you pay me 110 thousand back when only 100 thousand exists?  NOT POSSIBLE!

    Now I make the same deal with your neighbor.  You then do a job for your neighbor and he pays you $10,000.00.  Now you can pay me the interest you owe on your loan, but that means your neighbor has to capture $20,000.00 from the next borrower just to break even and pay his interest to me.

    Now, multiply this debt money creation problem, by billions of loans, and decades of drawing interest that no money was created to pay, and I think you may start to see how we could have accumulated such a large amount of debt!  We the consumer get stuck with the tab! 
    When government borrows, the consumer pays through higher and higher taxes .
    When corporate America borrows, you pay their loans and interest in higher costs for their products or services. When you borrow, you pay the loan plus interest yourself.

    It’s a never ending spiral of indebtedness!  When Corporate America charges more for their products or services, the government must pay more.  Then the government raises your taxes, so you must ask your employer for a raise.  Being a good productive employee, the employer does not want to lose you, so he grants your pay raise.  Now that employer must once again raise the price of his products or services.  Once again the government will have to pay more and once again raise your taxes.  Etc., etc., etc..

    Another example is:  If ten businesses each borrowed $10,000.00, at 10% interest,  it figures  out mathematically, that if each business paid it’s loan back plus interest, the 10th business would have to go bankrupt.
    It has become obvious that this fractional banking debt monetary system does not work for the masses, but only for the fortunate few!

    Take for example,  home foreclosures.  The banker, when he loaned the money to the borrower, to purchase a home, had the borrower sign a mortgage agreement.  This agreement states that the borrower has mortgaged a portion of the next 30 years of his labors to the banker.  Who or what actually created the money for the purchase of the home?  Let’s say that the home’s purchase price was $100,000.00.  The banker, by law is supposed to have at least 10% of that amount in reserve, in order to create the remaining $90,000.00!  But what was the actual trigger that made this transaction possible?  Could it be that the money was actually created on the borrowers promise to pay it back to the banker?
    What happens if the borrower defaults on the mortgage?  The bank gets to foreclose on the home and resell it. If the borrower does manage to pay off the mortgage, the banker will collected approximately $200,000.00 in interest for having done about 2 weeks of  mortgage paper work, and mailing out monthly statements for 30 years!

    People think other factors operate in this debt system to keep it functioning.  One of those factors, they call the velocity of money.  This refers to how fast money travels from person to person.  It doesn’t matter how fast a five dollar bill travels from one person to another.  It is still only a five dollar bill!
    Another factor they use, is how many times the same money gets reused.  These people do not take into consideration that each new person receiving that money, had to expend labor or productivity in order to capture it through commerce.  Don’t you ever wonder how many hours of productivity each five dollar bill has behind it?  Do you ever wonder how much discretionary spending money is lost by the masses in this way?

    Money does not have any natural reproductive powers, it has to be created.
    Some people seem to think that a gold backed system is the answer to our financial woes.  It truth, gold  never did back our money.  We did have gold as money at one time.  This was in very small quantities.
    Back in the early years of our nation’s history, gold and silver were mined and/or panned by prospectors.  These prospectors could take their mined ore to the U. S. mint, have the ore assayed, weighed, melted down and stamped into coin, free of charge.  This was creation of money by rewarding man’s productivity.  There was no debt or interest in this method, but gold was only the symbol of man’s productivity!

    This brings us to the difference between wealth money and debt money.  Money that is created by rewarding man’s labors, is wealth money.  Money that is created through loan agreements is debt money, in that it is not rewarding man’s current productivity, but mortgaging man’s future productivity!
    Money created as wealth, doesn’t have to be paid back to anyone, and lives on indefinitely!
    Money created as loans, has to be paid back with interest, and erased from the books.  The loan system, because of interest, always creates a debt greater than the debt money supply created!

    Money should be created by rewarding man’s productivity.  This could be accomplished by congress passing laws, requiring the U.S. treasury to create any and all monies needed to pay for city or county  (approved) transportation infrastructure maintenance and new construction.  This would include all roads, highways bridges, tunnels and mass transit systems deemed necessary in the state of  origin.
    If done on a national level, all cities and counties could create, and control the amount of wealth money created in the following fashion.  It would not have to be those entities in just one state, but all 50 states combined.  It would bring control back down to where it should be, OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

    This would be accomplished in the following manner.  The entity finding a need for a project that would benefit the people and commerce, would have their planners draw up the plans, and have that project let out for competitive bid, just as it is done today.
    All of the safety specs would apply. Livable wages and full benefits would be a mandatory factor in the bidding process.  There would be NO ROADS OR BRIDGES TO NOWHERE allowed.

    Once the winning bid is determined, the city or county would order their respective state to submit the winning bid amount for that transportation project, to the U.S.treasury.  The treasury would create an asset monetization account.  It would then debit that amount out of it’s account, into the state’s transportation project account, which would in turn, debit it out of their account, into the winning contractors bank account, in increments, until the project was completed.  The work on the project would progress.  The contractor’s employees,  suppliers, etc., would earn their wages and spend it into circulation, without any debt involved.  Inflation would not be a factor, because each dollar entering circulation would be matched by productivity!

    We would have to enforce tough laws and penalties for corruption.  No pats on the hand, or country club prisons for the violators.
    Stiff mandatory punishment should be enforced, without exception, if found guilty.  This goes for the judicial system also.  Any corrupt judges should be put away also.  Isn’t it amazing how people will immediately call the police if their home has been robbed, yet they  have let the bankers with their debt monetary system, and help from the politicians get away with ripping them off for decades?   It doesn’t make sense!

    Creating infrastructure in this manner, would mean that there would be NO NEED FOR ROAD USE, OR FUEL TAXES.  We would take millions of people off of the welfare and unemployment roles.  They would earn livable wages and benefits, and become contributing members of society, rather than being a burden on society.  The cost of shipping products would come down drastically, as would taxes.  By paying for mass transit systems in this manner, we would reduce the traffic congestion across the nation, and also reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  Getting rid of a lot of our taxation, will enable us to compete economically with other nations, and reduce our trade deficit, as our cost of living and taxes become less.

    In order to get rid of the federal reserve and their debt banking system, we may have to resort to dual currencies for a time, or change the printing on the federal reserve notes to read United States Dollars.
    To achieve the elimination of the fed, the congress would have to place gradually increasing reserve requirements on the bankers, to match the increasing growth of the new wealth money, until the new money reaches the point where it could handle our nation’s monetary and economic needs.

    Banks would have to go back to a fee for service type of business.  Unlike the system we are currently enslaved by, the new money would enable us, because it is a wealth system, to pay down debt, which would continually lower our taxes and allow us to keep more discretionary spending money.  We would also be able to afford health insurance, and would be able to put away for our own retirement.  What have we got to lose?  If we continue on the same course, we will go bankrupt as a nation.  It won’t be too many years from now, that just servicing the interest on total debt, at 6%,  will surpass our total gross consumer income.  At that point, man will have to choose between feeding his family, or paying his taxes!

    Not paying taxes will mean that government contracts with businesses will fail, as will the stock market.
    What’s invested there?  IRA’S, 401K’s, and pension plans!  Think about the difference between money and credit.  Money should be the final payment, but under our current system, aren’t we just transferring our indebtedness onto someone else, because we have paid the debt with the debt principle of someone else’s loan?  This means that someone else, either individually or collectively, had to go into debt for at least the amount of  the loan supposedly being paid off.  Under this system, if we quit borrowing, the system will collapse, because if we don’t borrow, we do not have a medium of exchange!  The government encourages everyone to save, but this is impossible because, under this system, if there is no debt, there can be no dollars! Many have to be in debt for the few to have and enjoy wealth!
     
    If we have money in a savings account, checking, or in our pockets, we could not possibly have that money unless someone else in this system, either individually or collectively has an equal amount of debt!  Follow money from it’s creation to it’s end!  It’s your duty to see that your children’s financial future, is not in jeopardy.  It’s no fault of theirs, that we have allowed this to happen.  Ask your representatives why this issue is never discussed in public forum?  Why are they hiding the facts from the people?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Holy moly! that was as long as a dictionary!

      I must demand that you are a bit incorrect when you argue that government should spend more money. This simply is not a productive way to create wealth (you point out that, indeed, wealth and money are different).

      How could government spending increase wealth? Here is a brief list as to why it can not:

      1- all money government spends comes from an act of aggression against it's populace: "pay or you go to jail". This is not by any means any way of creating wealth, or else we'd all be justified in becoming criminals.

      2- how can someone else spending your money generate wealth? If you somehow got all of my money, and had free reign to spend it as you wished... would you really be frugal with it? of course not - it's not your money! Lord knows I ate like a pig and cranked the thermostat down when I lived at my parents house... but then i woke up one day and had to pay for it all on my own!!

      3- what's a better gift, honestly: $20 cash, or a $20 gift certificate to Best Buy? -- Obviously the cash! A gift certificate to Best Buy (while nice) can only be used AT best buy!! --- what's better, you spending your money any way you please, or having the government take your money and then spending it on a specific item you might not have wanted?

      4- what sounds like a smarter idea in general? - A) letting people choose how to spend their own money? or B) paying someone money to spend your money for you? (quick note: keynesian economics wouldn't see a problem with this - C+I+G=K : it doesn't matter what you buy!)

      ...

      Anyway, that's why governmental spending of money can ONLY lead to more poverty.

      If you'd like to learn more, check out the Timelss book "Economics in One Lesson" by henry hazlitt., or just watch the video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD28vNVovow

      1. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evan,  I believe that you misunderstand what I wrote.  My proposal for the creation of wealth money instead of debt money works like this.

        The treasury would be required to create money for our infrastructure maintainance and new construction in lieu of taxation or borrowing.

        No where did I suggest that the money the treasury would create, would have to be borrowed.

        Congress gave the federal reserve the right to create money.

        Why can't congress give the treasury the right to create money?

        The difference that I am suggesting is that the treasury could create the
        money needed to pay for our infrastructure needs and spend it into circulation without borrowing and without interest.

        There are only 3 ways that money can possibly enter into circulation.

        It can be gifted in, which would discourage any productivity.

        It can be loaned in, which is where we are at now, and you can see where decades of interest bearing loans has gotten us.

        It can be spent in, without being borrowed, and without any interest being attached.  If money is created to enhance our infrastructure, for the benefit of the people and commerce, it should be a welcome change.

        This is possible.  Congress can pass legislation for the benefit of the people and commerce.

        According to the constitution, congress has the power to coin money and to build post roads.  Congress could combine those two powers to accomplish my proposal.

        Many people nitpick on the words coin money.  Congress can interpret the word coin in any way it pleases, so I put that to rest ahead of time.

        Granted, the congress would have to grow some cahones, and battle TPTB.

        Where is it written that all money must be created as an evidence of indebtedness to the people?  Why must it be bankers that create our money?

        I would limit my proposal to the infrastructure.  It enhances the lives of all
        people in that most of our daily supplies are brought to us over the infrastructure. 

        I realize that my post was lengthy, but I maybe should have made it a little longer, as I see that I didn't explain my idea of creating debt free money
        well enough.

        I hope this clears things up a bit.

        1. profile image0
          jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,  While I appreciate your intentions in giving me the link to Economics in one lesson,  I find those economics books and lessons
          misleading at best.

          The proof is in the pudding.

          We are forced to borrow to have a medium of exchange.

          We have been steadily been digging a deeper and deeper indebtedness hole under this debt system.

          Approximately 80% of the wealth is in the hands of about 5% of the people, which proves that under this system, the wealth gravitates to the very wealthy.  The rest of the people are kept in varying degrees of financial slavery.

          It is impossible to pay down our national debt.

          personal indebtedness is out of sight.

          poverty and unemployment are rampant, along with bankruptcies and foreclosures.

          Business failings at an all time high.

          Ponzi schemes and fraud are common occurances.

          Joe Sixpack's IRA's, 401K's and pension plans losing money right and left.

          Downsizing and outcourcing rampant.

          Our manufacturing base leaving the country.

          Polution of our oceans, rivers and land because of greed

          Costly wars and foreign aid draining us economically

          Healthcare and drug costs constantly rising

          Not enough money for disease research.

          The elderly in danger of losing the ability to afford the needed care and medicines.

          The spectre of the looming retirement of the baby boomers

          maintaining a military presence in more countries that any other nation in the world.

          Bailing out bankers and auto companies

          Rising cost of living and taxes

          Less and less expendable income

          Higher and higher utility and transportation costs.

          To meet expenses, more jobs taken on by individuals

          Less quality family time whiich leads to a moral decay in society

          Increasing crime and use of narcotics

          More prisons and prisoners

          All police departments armes with riot gear.  WHY?

          Corrupt judicial system

          Controlled media

          You fill in the rest.

          Now, give me the benefits of our current system that will outweigh the things listed above.

          I think it is time to think outside the box.  This system has always been broken, and will not get any better

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hey there, just commenting back - thanks for the discussion.

            You said that I might have misinterpreted what you said, but then you said "...the treasury would be required to create money for...", which is exactly what I was commenting on.

            Government, no matter what, can only screw things up because Government can NOT create wealth.

            You then proceed to suggest that "No where did I suggest that the money the treasury would create, would have to be borrowed.", which is technically correct, but, for the most part, misleading.

            Sure, the money that is "created out of thin air" isn't being borrowed from anywhere... but it's theft! It's worse than borrowing! Monetary inflation is NOTHING short of theft!!!  If 20 people own 30 dollars each, and then one creates out of thin air 30 more dollars, then he stole the purchasing power of every other person's money! He's a thief! Burn him! Kill him! Throw the Fed and the Treasury in Jail!

            Sure, it ain't borrowed... but it's worse!

            You then claim that "Congress can pass legislation for the benefit of the people and commerce." -- this is simply wrong. I pointed to 4 reasons why in the last post, but I could point to more if you want. Check out my hubs "Evan's Easy Economics" for an in depth view as to why government can't create wealth (they CAN create money, but not wealth).

            you argue that congress can coin money - yes it can! I'm glad someone is using the constitution to validate their argument! That's VERY welcome!

            Indeed, congress can COIN money - why is the verb Coin, and not Create? Let's continue to read the constitution even further to find out why! --- well, in Article 1 section 10, the constitution prohibits states from accepting Bills of Credit as any sort of payment!!!

            THE CONSTITUTION HAS OUTLAWED PAPER MONEY?!!?! yes- it has! Our money is Unconstitutional. This is very very very sad, but true.

            Unfortunately, you proceed to argue that congress' ability to make "post roads" is the equivalent to being able to make "interstate highways" --- THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! James Madison's final act as president was to veto an interstate highway bill that even he was for - but he vetoed it because it was unconstitutional! OUR ROAD SYSTEM IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

            You then make the statement: "Congress can interpret the word coin in any way it pleases, so I put that to rest ahead of time." which is just incorrect.

            IT is a travesty that anyone can say that with a straight face. If Congress can interpret "coin" to mean whatever it wants, then why can't the states translate the same word to mean whatever way they want?! After all, the States were the ones who created the Federal Government - NOT VICE VERSA!! Why would 13 states, who just threw off a tyrannical government who didn't have a written constitution proceed to create a written constitution for their new government... and then say "oh, you can translate it anyway you want, by the way!"

            ... that would be ludicrous. You are, simply, wrong on this statement.

            You, in your next post, make the claim that "We are forced to borrow to have a medium of exchange." which is incorrect - we can print money or tax the money from the populace. All are god-awful prospects, and the fact that these would ALL be HORRENDOUS to the economy simply shows that, not only has our government GREATLY OVER-STEPPED its boundaries (the 10th amendment), but that Keynes' economic theory is completely incorrect.

            You state that "Approximately 80% of the wealth is in the hands of about 5% of the people, which proves that under this system, the wealth gravitates to the very wealthy. ", and I'm supposed to be mad about this!  I'm glad that when I buy an iPod from steve jobs, he gets money! I'm very happy! I love the fact that Steve Jobs made a great product, and I obviously value the iPod MUCH more than the money I gave to him!

            This is how wealth is created! Through trade, I value X much more than I value Y, and you value Y much more than you value X -- we're both happier as a result.

            The reason why the wealthy have so much wealth is simply because they work hard and create that which people need (I am ignoring, for the time being, those who use government to get what they want - I have already pointed out that government is evil. your argument is that government CAN be good, I'm arguing that government is ALWAYS bad. Thus, my argument automatically has eliminated the ability of people to use government to steal from people, yours allows it).

            No offense, but your arguments -- "The rest of the people are kept in varying degrees of financial slavery" -- sound like socialism! It's not anyone's fault, except that specific person, that THEY BOUGHT a TV, that THEY BOUGHT a microwave etc etc. In our country the poor can afford to buy a car!! that's amazing! The poor can afford Refrigerators!! fantastic!! The poor are actually very very rich.

            The problem with your view is that you're simply comparing the current rich to the current poor. You are ignoring (innocently, i'm not trying to be mean) that the poorest of poor in our country are some of the wealthiest in the world (compare the poorest here to the poorest in somalia!!), and they are some of the richest in ALL of history - compare the king of France 300 years ago to a poor person today - a car and a fridge, and a crappy home, and electricity, and running water, and so much more! Even the king had to throw his excrement out the window!!!

            I agree with the rest of your statements!! with ease to I agree with them - but even though you are trying to "think outside the box", you are simply proposing more of the same. Let's abolish government and demand laissez faire.

            Corporatocracy is bad because of the "ocracy" part of the word, not the "corporat" part.

            I'm also VERY VERY VERY amazed that you keep talking about "thinking outside the box" and "thinking of different solutions" and "getting other ideas"... ... but then you just so blatantly refuse to simply watch a video that I sent you!! All you have to do is click and eat some popcorn!! You'll be amazed at what you see!!

            Until you watch the video, I must simply say that you aren't serious about "thinking outside the box"

            1. profile image0
              jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Evan,  Money or bills can be created yet not be money until they are monetized.  They don't achieve that status until they are spent into circulation.

              Money being created out of thin air is exactly what bankers do today.  You call it theft, but to get by that, they can revert to what I have just stated above.  Under my proposal, the money would be first earned, then spent in. I still don't understand how you figure that this would be inflationary, when each dollar going into circulation would be matched with productivity.

              You say thar the constitution has outlawed paper money.  then the federal reserve notes must be illegal also, yet they are still being printed.

              You also say our road system is unconstitutional also, yet we still build roads, and borrow to do it.

              Doesn't this show it can be done?

              I said that we are forced to borrow in order to have a medium of echange.  You said this was incorrect. 

              I have in my possession, a letter from Russell L Munk, asst general council, dept of the treasury of the U.S.. 
              In his letter, he is answering questions put to him by some of my associates.  The first question was"
              How is money created, and how does it get into circulation?

              His answer was:  "The actual creation of money, always involves the extension of credit from private commercial banks."

              The second question put to him was:
              If all money is created as debt in the form of loans, where does the money to pay the interest on borrowed money come from?

              His answer was:  The money to pay interest on loans comes from the same source as all other money.
              Now tell me that I am incorrect, and please explain in detail how you think money is created,  how it gets into circulation and where the money to pay the interest on borrowed money comes from?  After all, you did say I was incorrect.  Enlighten me please.

              Then I would like you to tell me how a nation can get ahead when they are always creating a debt greater that the debt money supply they create?

              Yes we can print money or tax money from the populace, but how did that money we tax get into circulation, and how does the newly printed money get into circulation?


              I do not begrudge the wealthy if is not achieved on the backs of a public forced to borrow to have that medium of exchange.  much of the wealth achieved is through usury.

              You seem to think that people all have a choice.  Under this system we do not.  If we stop borrowing, the system begins an immediate collapse.

              YOu say that wealth is created through trade.  Then we sure are doing a bank up job for ourselves.  Have you taken a look at our trade deficit lately?


              YOu say my proposed system allows people to steal from the government.
              How would you know?  There has never really been a wealth monetary system in this country.

              Evan, It appears to me that you have no intention of working toward any solutions.  I see you misinterpreting most everything I say.  You believfe that congress is limited.  How have they managed to amend the constitution up until now?  You come across to me as a contrarian for the sake of arguing only.  If I am wrong I am truly sorry.

              Once a gold bug and an Austrian economics buff, there is no way to talk to you, so I will close by agreeing to disagree.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am fully aware that money doesn't really affect the prices of things until it enters the market. But... why ... print money... unless you're going to spend it...?

                The government, in your proposition would use the money to build roads - for whatever reason - and the money would go directly into the economy in that way - prices of asphalt, concrete, renting bulldozers, steamrollers, and labor will all increase. Then the private - "we don't have government giving us money" - entrepreneurs will have to pay more for things. Then even more prices will go up, and there will be a "road construction" bust.

                How can anyone "earn" money that they can just print out of thin air? If someone creates money with 0.0000000001% effort, and then uses that money to buy things that cost REAL resources,... then those resources are being stolen!! That's how counterfeiting works! If a mobster creates a fake $100 and then spends it on a watch, isn't he just stealing the watch?

                This is exactly what the government / federal reserve do!!

                "You say thar the constitution has outlawed paper money.  then the federal reserve notes must be illegal also, yet they are still being printed." --- YES!! I AGREE!!! It's completely nonsense!!

                But arguing that "because it's happening, it must not be unconstitutional" is ALSO nonsense --- if the state starts going around murdering Jews and Blacks... then it MUST be constitutional (by your logic).

                Your Quote: ""The actual creation of money, always involves the extension of credit from private commercial banks.""

                Indeed! The federal reserve just prints money out of thin air! The credit he refers to is likely through bonds - the government makes bonds out of thin air, and then banks buy them (this destroys money). Or vice versa, the banks sell the bonds, and then this creates money.  The federal reserve does this... but it has the authority to create money out of thin air - this is how it controls the interest rates!!

                This is what he meant, he just said it in a happy way:  "It comes out of the credit of the bank" means exactly the same thing as "banks buy them / sell them at will, and that's how money is created". But he didn't mention that the Federal Reserve has an INFINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY!! -- It has authority to make all the money it wants! Whenever you hear "the fed lowered interest rates", this means "the fed created a WHOLE lot of money out of thin air today".

                i'm not misinterpreting anything you're saying! Your FIRST SENTENCE WAS THIS: "The treasury would be required to create money for our infrastructure maintainance and new construction in lieu of taxation or borrowing." -- there is no way I could misinterpret that!!

                That sentence means "We'll print money out of thin air and spend it on roads" - every single word of that sentence is unconstitutional.

                I fail to see how you could have been an "Austrian Economics Buff" if you can't see how inflation is a poison - the entire POINT of Austrian Economics is that inflation is evil.

                Until you point out how "Creating paper money, and then using that counterfeit money to buy real resources and labor to make completely random roads and infrastructure that aren't necessary whatsoever --- all of which is unconstitutional --- is NOT the same thing as stealing wealth from the public" then you're simply wrong!

                Counterfeiting is a crime for a reason - it allows people to buy things without any effort! ....... but for some reason, even though it's outlawed by the supreme law of the land, we let our government do it.

  16. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago

    There are several ways to solve unemployment.

    1. Go out to other countries in search of employment.
    2. Stop recruiting outsiders for employment in your country.
    3. Increase production and develop marketing, creating need   
       for more production in every field.
    4. Market your products in other countries.
    5. Avoid lavish spending and be ready for hard labour.
    6. Irrespective of colour, religion and race, everyone should
       be ready to do every work.
    7. Finally, marketing your quality products in countries which
       have a huge market potential is the only way to solve your
       unemployment.
    8. Dont mix politics with trade.

  17. TheQuestion profile image61
    TheQuestionposted 6 years ago

    i have a couple ideas that may not be popular:
    get rid of all the illegal aliens and give their jobs to the unemployed
    make a law saying you are not allowed to hire students full-time
    slowly phase out all the outsourcing by American companies
    phase out the whole policy regarding reserving/holding jobs for people working in the military
    (there is no draft--everyone chose to work in the military they do not need another job being held for them)
    now that we have spent years hiring women and minorities over others perhaps we should hire white males again
    do not allow job-sharing
    make it illegal to hire anyone without a G.E.D.

  18. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    The overlying problem is that we are all just fodder for the rich, and they have control of all our shops, manufacturing, banks and jobs - and of course our governments.  The economics for people are not the same at the top, if the country does well they do well in cash terms, if the country does poorly they do well in acquiring cheap assets.

    It is definately past time for a change and a good start would be to regain control of the government and the media.

    The problem is beyond personal control, those who lose a good job and crash into poverty may have been working but were deeply in debt, as is anyone who is not 'rich' enough.  Change normally comes with chaos and violence because that is the only way it comes home to most people, maybe with a bit of intelligence and communication this could be avoided - if, of course, things get that bad.

  19. Ben Evans profile image73
    Ben Evansposted 6 years ago

    jerryl,

    Quote

    "Why can't congress give the treasury the right to create money? 

    The difference that I am suggesting is that the treasury could create the money needed to pay for our infrastructure needs and spend it into circulation without borrowing and without interest."


    Wow, are you serious?

    I live in Seattle.  They are going to build a tunnel that the public voted against and it will cost 4.7 billion dollars + over runs.  I know there is a sea wall etc etc etc.  This is useless piece of junk that wont carry traffic and being shoved down our throats.  It will be awarded to selective contractors and will actually have little benefit to most people in the state.  I dislike the word progressive.

    We just don't print money and put it into circulation.  The government has to be responsible.  Heck maybe we can grow money on trees and anyone who needs it can just pick it.

    I try to stay out of these conversations but my goodness there is a consequence to printing money.  The government cant spend us into growth.

    and

    We cant just print money!

    1. profile image0
      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well you can and you have !   but you are right in the long run and for other countries it was part of the endgame of their particular cultural period.

      1. Ben Evans profile image73
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know we have and I meant it more in the sense that we shouldn't print money.

        I think that we need to be responsible.

    2. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ben,  Thanks for the post.  I think however that you are misreading my proposal.

      My proposal calls for projects that benefit both the people and commerce.

      It goes out for competitive bid.  It is not awarded, willy nilly.

      The money for the project that the treasury would create, does not enter into circulation until it is earned by the contractor's employees, suppliers,
      etc., etc.  Once it is earned, it is spent in, without any borrowing or interest.

      I am sorry that you are being ripped off by government allowing unwanted
      and useless projects.  My proposal would have teeth in it toprotect against any such thing.  There are projects like that hapening under our current system.  Under my proposal, at the very least, we would be creating money without borrowing or interest.  I turly believe that the benefits under this new system would far outweiogh our current system.

      I don't know why people can't get their head around the fact that under my proposal, the only function of the treasury would be to create money.  The actual entering of the money into circulation would be precipitated by people earning that money through their productivity, and then spending in
      into circulation.  The power would come from the local communities rather than the politicians in Washington.

      Why is it that most people cannot think of money creation in any way that doesn't involve putting people into unpayable indebtedness?  Remember, there is never any money created to pay interest on any loan.

      Why can't we treat our infrastructure as an asset, and use it as a vehicle to create debt free money?

      1. Ben Evans profile image73
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Okay good solution.  I am going to get some blanks of paper and I will write a hundred dollars on them.

        I will pay you with these and I will pay you very well.  Do you want to work for me?

        We can get these circulated through society and everyone can be rich.

        1. profile image0
          jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ben, You Are being facetious. 

          I proposed to use our productivity in building infrastructure as an asset with which to create money.  You are suggesting that I am proposing
          just printing up money willy nilly.  How absurd!

          Todays currency is backed by nothing excapt the faith of the people and the credit of the nation.  The reason congress likes this system, is that they have a blank check for most anything, and place the bill on your national credit card.   They are the ones printing up credit debt dollars at will!  This must change!!

          As long as you are willing to go into debt, and sign a loan agreement with the banker, promising to pay him back for money he creates on your promise to pay, he will put those numbers in your checking account, that he creates out of thin air!

          This will increase indebtedness, and add more interest debt, that no money was created to pay.

          How many decades of a growing national debt have to pass before you realize that this system is broken?  All money is created through loans or other debt instruments!

          If you and I, corporate America and the government stop borrowing, we are left without a medium of exchange, and the system collapses.

          If we continue to borrow, it will eventually collapse anyway.

          We have over 60 trillion in total debt, with approximately another 60 trillion in unfunded government debt obligations.  This does not even begin to add up the derivative debt. 

          You tell me what other options we have! 

          You are good at trying to put down any proposals, but seem to have none of your own.  Let's hear some ideas.  Waiting anxiously!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I just responded to your other posts - let me tackle this one while I'm still here:

            "I proposed to use our productivity " --- you must be more specific. You are asking EVERYONE to have their wealth be taken from them just so that we'll have EVEN MORE ROADS than we already have. This is nonsense on stilts!! I would much rather keep $30 worth of purchasing power (you are proposing inflation, so we're really talking about PP, not money), and spend that on Chipotle burritos than 1/100000000000 of ANOTHER road. And even then I'd like to point out that inflation is unconstitutional, and so is the interstate highway system.

            "Todays currency is backed by nothing excapt the faith of the people and the credit of the nation.  The reason congress likes this system, is that they have a blank check for most anything, and place the bill on your national credit card.   They are the ones printing up credit debt dollars at will!  This must change!!" ---- I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY!!! ..... BUT WHY ARE YOU SAYING THIS, AND THEN SAYING WE NEED TO PRINT MORE MONEY?!?!?! This makes no sense!!! (<--- not in an insulting way! Just a simple X is inequal to -X sort of way - it can't make sense to make both statements)

            The true way to fix the problem is to get back on the gold standard, and have a separate - not-connected to gold (to avoid gresham's law) - silver standard. we need competing currencies. LORD KNOWS i'd MUCH rather have silver coins than this crappy paper I have in my back pocket.

            "You tell me what other options we have!  " --- DON'T INFLATE!! RETURN TO GOLD!!! RETURN TO HARD MONEY!! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION (specifically the 10th amendment)!!! IGNORE KEYNES!!!

            are those "other options"?

            *** I'm being respectful here!! I got banned recently for some really - in my opinion - mild speech. So now I'm in uber-respectful mode***

            1. profile image0
              jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Evan,  I don't know where you got the idea that I am asking everyone to have their wealth taken away from them in order to have more roads.

              You must think that I am suggesting that we borrow of the backs of the people in order to pay for and maintain infrastructure.

              This is far from what I proposed.  I said that the treasury, after having laws passed by congress would create the money needed to pay for infrastructure projects intended to enhance commerce and meet the needs of the people.  Create, does not automatically imply borrowing.

              If the fractional banking system can create money out of this air, on your signature, to loan to you at interest,  why couldn't the treasury create money to pay for infrastructure, without borrowing being involved?

              Under my plan, the treasury would not actually spend this money into circulation.  It would debit it out of an asset monetization account, into a state transportation project account.  The state in turn would debit it out of their account into the bid winning contractors bank accoount.  Then as the project progressed, the contractor would pay his workers and suppliers
              for services rendered.  This earned money would then be spent into circulation, debt free, interest free.  It would be monetized at the point of the contractor paying his suppliers and employees, rewarding them for their productivity.  I hope this clears things up for you.

              It really doesn't matter what we use for money.  What really matters is how money gets into circulation.  If it is loaned in, it is debt, usually with an interest debt attached to it that no money is created to pay.  When the loan payments are made, the debt principal of the payment is erased, and reduces the debt money supply.

              If money at it's origin, is first earned, then spent into circulation, there can be no debt or interest attached to it, and lives on indefinitely.

              While I appreciate your thoughts on gold, there is not enough gold to back the dollar.  Even if there was, unless we changed the current system, it wouldn't take long before all of the gold would belong to the bankers.
              In recorded history, there has only been about 175,000 metric tonnes of gold mined.  Taking the population of the world into consideration, and all of the gold used in jewelery, industry, statues, teeth, etc., there would be only a very minute speck of gold available for every man woman and child in this world.

              In order to have gold back the dollar, we would have to raise the value of gold to about $10,000 per ounce.  This would make a dollar coin about the size of a grain of sand.  Issueing gold certificates would not work either.  That is how this mess got started.  Goldsmiths starting loaning out more gold certificates than were redeemable.

              In truth, even back when people thought our dollars were backed by gold, it was really man's productivity that backed ouir dollars.  Gold and silver were just symbols of that productivity.  It was man's productivity that brought that natural resource out of the ground and gave it value.

              Changing our system to one of wealth rather than one of debt is the only answer.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                when you create money out of thin air, you steal wealth from everyone.

                Money is used to purchase things. If you can make money by simply putting paper into a machine, and then inking the numbers "$1000000" on it, you just stole exactly that much wealth (if not more) from the population.

                Your proposal, by your own quote, says that you would rely on the treasury just creating money out of thin air.

                Inflation is a form of tax. -- I'm surprised you claimed to be a gold bug, and an Austrian Economics buff, but don't realize this!

                (or were you saying that I'M an Austrian?! here's your quote: "Once a gold bug and an Austrian economics buff, there is no way to talk to you, so I will close by agreeing to disagree." ... a bit confusing)

                here's a more concrete example - Let's say that there are 10 people on an island and each person has $10 each. That means that the cost of every day expenditures probably cost each person less than a dollar (or so).

                Now let's say that one creates $3000 out of thin air, then nothing really changes... until he spends it. If he starts using his fake money to buy things, then he can buy just about anything he wants. Money starts flooding into the island, and all the resources flood to him... even though he didn't do anything to earn it. The people making the stuff are like "mwahahah, demand has increased! I can raise prices!!" ...

                ... and eventually everyone has $300, the majority of people are poor because they were only saving about a dollar a day - but now everything costs 10s of dollars a day.

                If you create money, you steal wealth from everyone else.

                1. profile image0
                  jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You said:
                  when you create money out of thin air, you steal wealth from everyone.

                  Money is used to purchase things. If you can make money by simply putting paper into a machine, and then inking the numbers "$1000000" on it, you just stole exactly that much wealth (if not more) from the population.

                  Your proposal, by your own quote, says that you would rely on the treasury just creating money out of thin air.

                  Evan,  You conveniently left out the fact that I said the treasury would debit that amount out of it's asset monetization account, into the state transportation project account, which in turn would debit out of it's account, into the bidwinning contractors account in increments, as the project progessed.

                  When you pick and choose just parts of a statement, it leads me to believe that you may be a shill for the fed or the bankers.  Your misdirection ploys are annoying at best.

                  While on the subject of bankers, under our current system,  don't the bankers, when lssueing a loan, create a multiple of their reaerve to loan out?  Isn't that creating money out of thin air?   

                  My proposal is a possibility.  It may need some legal tweaking, but I truly believe it can be done.  The system we have now has done nothing but place the people deeper and deeper in debt.  Most people believe in our current system's eventual crash, so why not look for other possibilities?
                  If you vehicle has a mechanical or electrical problem, you take it in and try to fix the problem before it dies on you.  Why not look for an alternative to this system?


                  You said:
                  I'm surprised you claimed to be a gold bug, and an Austrian Economics buff, but don't realize this!
                  (or were you saying that I'M an Austrian?! here's your quote: "Once a gold bug and an Austrian economics buff, there is no way to talk to you, so I will close by agreeing to disagree." ... a bit confusing)


                  Evan, It was you I was referring to. 
                  While we are on the gold bug paragraph,  I would also like to ask why you were expounding on the states not being able to print or create currency, but are limited to coin?  All I ever said was that the word coin was subject to different interpretation by congress.

                  Nowhere in my statements did I even remotely suggest that the states would create the money needed for infrastructure projects.  I said it would be created on the federal level and debited into the respective state's transportation project account.

                  You said:
                  here's a more concrete example - Let's say that there are 10 people on an island and each person has $10 each. That means that the cost of every day expenditures probably cost each person less than a dollar (or so).

                  Now let's say that one creates $3000 out of thin air, then nothing really changes... until he spends it. If he starts using his fake money to buy things, then he can buy just about anything he wants. Money starts flooding into the island, and all the resources flood to him... even though he didn't do anything to earn it. The people making the stuff are like "mwahahah, demand has increased! I can raise prices!!" ...

                  ... and eventually everyone has $300, the majority of people are poor because they were only saving about a dollar a day - but now everything costs 10s of dollars a day.

                  If you create money, you steal wealth from everyone else


                  Evan, This example is completely bogus and intended to confuse those following this thread.  Nice misdirection ploy.

                  In your example, there is no mention of how the $10 that each islander has, was created. Money has to have an origin.  Did the island have a treasury?  Did it have a banking system?  Did the islanders export anything?  Did they import anything?  Did they have a federal reserve that only loaned reserves to banks?  Would the people have to borrow the money from the bank at  interest, in order to have a medium of exchange?
                  Did they have a national debt? 

                  How did the one person just create $3,000?  He obviously created the money for his own personal use, not for the benefit of the populace!
                  Was he a counterfeiter?
                  Nowhere did you portray in this example anything that resembled what I proposed!
                  My proposal was that the money created was to pay for infrastructure, meant to enhance the public's transporttation needs and commerce.
                  This money would be earned through the creation of an asset, beneficial to the people, and then spent into circulation, debt free, interest free.

                  Now explain to me how your bogus example is anywhere near what I propose!

                  This is the last time I will play your little ego trip game.  People are looking for solutions, and all you can do is nitpick, and never come up with any attempts at a solution of your own. If you have one, I would like to see it!

                  1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                    EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah but no but... the US treasury would still effectively be creating money out of nothing.

                    I admit it's much better than the fractional reserve setup that all us Western countries are burdened with in one form or another, and at least it would be using the money for something potentially worthwhile, but as I understand it, creating money leads to inflation.  Ultimately the contractors in your scenario would end up with $x more in their bank accounts than they would otherwise have had, which they would use to buy stuff that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to buy, hence ultimately leading to inflation.

          2. Ben Evans profile image73
            Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            jeryl,

            I am sorry for the tone but I must say with all due respect I do not agree with printing more money.

            I own a small manufacturing company and I have seen this build for over 15 years.  This has been across all administrations.  I don't want to appear negative but I personally do not think that jobless situation can be corrected for years to come.  It has been building a long time and going to take awhile to fix.

            Eventually standards will need to equal that of the rest of the world and that includes labor.  I have been fighting this for a long time.  If labor is equalized then so are the assets we hold.  If we are going to live by the same labor rates than we need similar standards of living.  The prices of things like real property are going to keep going down.

            Now let me preface this and say that I know we are not going to go to third world standard but the standard will lower.

            Understand this, with all cost and this includes management, accounting, and sales to pay some one 18 dollars an hour, I have to have a shop rate of $60 per hour.  I have to compete with those who have shop rates of $10/hr in other countries.  Because of shipping, I can do high end highly specialized work.  Do you see my avatar?

            That is my twin head CNC.  It is much more rigid than gantry style and it helps me make money.  Technology is the key but everywhere is becoming more and more technology based so even people like myself are playing more and more on a even technology playing field.  I have to face the facts the way they are.

            I personally don't believe that the government can spend us into wealth so we will have to depart in disagreement on that issue.  Also I do not believe there are any quick fixes to our current situation.  It will take awhile and also our standards are going to start gravitating to that of the rest of the world.

            1. profile image0
              jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ben,

              I still have not gotten across to you that it would not be just printing money.

              The money created by the treasury wouldn't actually be monetized until the bidwinning contractor paid his suppliers and workers for services rendered.  This earned money would then be spent into circulation.

              I have enjoyed our conversation, and I wish you well in your business.

              I will agree to disagree with you.  Thanks for your posts

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                .... you are not making any sense...

                How can the money not be created out of thin air, if the money IS created out of thin air, and then spent on a "contract bidwinning contractor"?!?!?!

                You are saying this repeatedly - they create the money out of thin air, but then you say that you spend it... and ... this somehow destroys the money?! --- NO!! It leads to a bust!

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, even though this is the same person who got me a 3 day ban on forums because I called someone a moron who called everyone that disagreed with him a moron.

      Ben Evans is right - monetary inflation is absolutely incorrect - not the way to go.

      But be careful Ben, I got reported and banned for language similar to your "Wow, are you serious?"

      1. Ben Evans profile image73
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evan,

        I had no idea that you got banned and you did not call me moron that was probably someone else.  I have been banned once and you have to make a personal attack like calling them a name to get banned.

        "Are you serious?"  is neither an attack or anything disparaging.  I am here to discuss and there are actually many points that we will agree.  I am not here to point fingers at you.

      2. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, how would it be monetary inflation if every dollar created was matched by productivity?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          THE MONEY CAME FROM THIN AIR!!!!

          Here's your first sentence: "The treasury would be required to create money for our infrastructure maintainance and new construction in lieu of taxation or borrowing."

          How bout I replace the word "treasury" with "gangster", and we'll see how the sentence reads:

          "the gangster would be required to create money..."

          Suddenly it sounds like a real crime.  But what if we just use "My crazy uncle"

          "My crazy uncle would be required to create money..."

          These are all bad situations. For some reason we just ignore the fact that the government is breaking the law (Article 1 section 8 uses, SPECIFICALLY the word "Coin", and in section 10  all states are prevented from using anything but silver and gold coin as legal tender, and they are even further prevented from using paper money)

  20. prettydarkhorse profile image60
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    I think all over the world, the economy is down because of the worth of Euro which affects every nation, and then the world recession which just happened,

    More than ever, we are affected by world economy

    But aside from that, I think it boils more to local economy and political situation and politicking to my mind, the Canadian unemployment rate is improving more than the US.

    In Econ 101 ( the only subject I had under Economics), unemployment rate goes up when there are no new business investments -- there is business investments when people have the capacity to buy something, there is demand. If unemployment rate is high, there is less money to spend of course. Businessmen will create new business when the local economy is conducive to them otherwise they put business elsewhere. Stable political leadership is needed then. And if the interest rate is high, business will fold down, more unemployment. Banks are very important in any economy, because they set interest rate -- mortgage, loans debts etc -- individual.

    Is it more advantageous to just shift budgeting (stop aid to other countries)or to borrow more money from China for example to fuel the conomy. I don't know the answer.

    So if the people, don't have money to buy anything because there is no money and they cant find job, it is cyclical pattern, the more unemployed people the less circulation of money. Less savings and uncertain times, crimes go up.

  21. megs78 profile image60
    megs78posted 6 years ago

    here are two ways to create more jobs in america:

    1.  Stop buying so much from China.  Buy local whenever possible.

    2.  Get a control of Workers Unions.  Yes, they are good a lot of the time, but have recently become protection for the lazy and a platform for greediness.  We deserve to be paid well, but there has to be a limit.  This is why jobs are outsourced.

    Just my opinion.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image79
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'd start with the public worker's unions.

    2. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      megs78,  "We deserve to be paid well, but there has to be a limit"

      Tell that to the corporate execs that pay themselves multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses and stock options. 

      The original reason for unions was to protect workers.

      In the 1930's, truckers would make an agreement with wholesalers in
      New York for the delivery of produce.  When the truckers arrived, they were offered less than half of what was the agreed upon price for transportating the produce.  If they demanded the agreed upon price, they were told to let the produce rot on their trucks.

      Greedy execs were the original cause that spurred the growth of unions. 

      What's to say that this wouldn't happen again?

      1. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know unions became necessary because of greedy execs.  But I also know that unions are now becoming greedy and are never happy with what they have.  We always need more, but the economy is unable to support our demands.  And when I talk about unions, this doesn't exclude multi million dollar bonuses given to business execs and bankers.  Its the whole american system that has become a vortex of greed!  sad really.

      2. culturalrider profile image61
        culturalriderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        While unions are fine, another way to prevent this from happening again is to spread information about the scamming company so that no one else delivers for them.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      BUYING LOCAL SOLVES NOTHING!!! it actually compounds the problem!!

      Every time you buy anything you are exporting a job!! It's inaccurate to think that buying from your nextdoor neighbor is any different than buying from someone in China. This argument (although I'm certain Megs is COMPLETELY INNOCENT of this - 100% honestly) is just racist!!

      If some guy in China can make tomatoes cheaper than people in the US, then we ALL benefit form buying from china! I get to spend more money on other things, I get tomatoes, and the US farmer gets to spend his time providing society with a different service!! If he isn't able to make a cheap and good tomato, then he shouldn't bother! Have him do something that is more productive to society!

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Unless of course the US economy goes t*ts up and it therefore becomes prohibitively expensive to buy tomatoes from China, and impossible to buy them locally because all your local farmers stopped growing tomatoes due to the fact that it became impossible to compete with those cheap Chinese tomatoes.

        That's the trouble with global trade: when the economy is doing well, everything's hunky dory.  When your economy (and mine) goes down the pan, then we're in far bigger trouble than we would have been if we'd adopted "shop local" as our motto.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          when cheap chinese tomatoes become expensive (because of US hyperinflation, i suppose), then US tomatoes will become profitable, and people will start growing them.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            ...after an inevitable lag period, they will - yes.  But during that lag period, the US would effectively be a tomato-free zone (except for people who grew their own tomatoes and those who lived locally enough to be able to barter for them). 

            And when you realise that it's not just tomatoes that we're talking about, but any other foodstuffs where "cheap" imports have replaced domestically grown produce, then you're looking at shortages, resulting eventually in hunger and food riots.

            That's why I'm a big fan of "food security".  However, I don't support protectionism/tariffs on imports because I think that always results in its own set of problems.

            But I do wish individual consumers would wake up and smell the decaff when it comes to buying domestic produce (although of course certain things like bananas and coffee are always going to be imported).     

            This is a conundrum that's only ever going to be solved by people taking responsibility for their choices, as Justine says.

      2. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You know, I didn't mean not to buy ANYTHING from China.  I meant we need to slow down on what we buy from other countries.  Have you ever gone to Dollarama?  Nobody buys anything local anymore because its so much cheaper to buy everything from overseas.  Look, it has nothing to do with being racist (which I know you didn't accuse me of...sort of) but more practicality.  We need imports and we need to export, but, there has to be balance.  YOu must know that.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Once again, I'm not trying to call you racist - I'm sorry!

          But it just seems that, after picking at the subject with anyone for a long time and actually debating it, I usually convince them that "buying overseas" isn't a bad thing, and that the argument generally is just a use of racism to protect lazy Americans.

          for the official record: Megs78 is not a racist (as far as i know smile )

      3. Sab Oh profile image59
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "BUYING LOCAL SOLVES NOTHING!!! This argument is just racist!! "

        Um, what race are you talking about?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Any race that is used in order to scare the populace into spending more money for the same product.

          "Don't buy chinese stuff" - it's an argument grounded in racism by the lazy americans who want to get $10/hour for $5/hour work

          1. Sab Oh profile image59
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're confusing your economic theories with racism.

    4. culturalrider profile image61
      culturalriderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think unions should be focused on negotiating for higher wages for employees and better work conditions than focusing on protecting lazy workers, since these lazy workers only drive down the value of the workers as a whole.

  22. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    I find it interesting that someone suggested to "print money" via the U.S. Treasury??? roll

    That happens to be a statement that is completely foolish, because it is ILLEGAL for the U.S. Government or any branch to print or create "paper money" or did someone miss that?

    The only authorized place that can print "paper money" is the Federal Reserve Bank, and that IS NOT a Government agency of the United States.

    If anyone is curious, it's in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits government from printing money.

    Hence, the reasons for a better solution is warranted.

    Just a thought.

    1. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cagsil,  Congress can change anything, even if it has to amend the constitution.  Therefore, it could give the treasury the power to create money.  It doesn't have to be printed.  It could be created as electronic transfer money, by the touch of a computer key.

      Congress can literally change the meaning of to (coin) money.

      Words can be interpreted differently.  How about to (coin) a phrase?

      How about some solution ideas from you?  You started this thread, you must have had some ideas in mind.

      1. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil,  If you had read my proposal, you would have noted that I said that the treasury would have the power to (CREATE) money.  Nowhere did I say anything about printing.

        I also said that congress would have to pass a law giving that power to the treasury.  If that means amending the constitution before hand, then that is what congress would have to do.

        You people are all about trying to destroy a solution!  Does any of you have any suggestions that would enhance the possibility of a new fairer monetary system?  Maybe apathy has taken permanent hold!

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Create money? In what form? In Paper Form? Isn't happening, we learned from HISTORY that isn't going to work.
          They cannot amend the Constitution with regards to printing or creating money, unless it is in silver or gold.
          This statement was not called for.
          And, again, you are attacking it from the wrong perspective, but that's nothing new, the government does the same thing. But, good luck with what you think is the solution.

          1. profile image0
            jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Cagsil,  Who are you trying to BS?  With the proper agenda and approval,
            congress CAN amend the constitution.

            From reading your last post, it is obvious that you do not retain what you read, or you just scan briefly and then assume what's there.

            If you had retained what was there, you would not have asked "In what form".

            You would have retained that I said it could be in the form of electronic transfer, created with the touch of a computer key.

            1. profile image61
              gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, jerryl, you're probably not going to like me but, oh well. The only difference that I see between the government simply printing money and your proposal for it to 'create' money (in the form of an electronic transfer) is the technology involved. There really is not much difference between pushing a button to turn on the printing press and pushing the button to Electronically transfer funds from one place to another. Neither one has any real and true value. That might be where you might want to focus your argument, creating value to the money that exists. Since Eisenhower took us off the gold standard, the value of the U.S. dollar has continued to fall and where and when it will land is a toss up.

              1. Paradise7 profile image84
                Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Right--it matters not whether it's paper or electronic, just making more dollars and shoving them into the system only devalues the dollar even more, it does not solve anything, not even in the short run.

              2. profile image0
                jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Gryffon,  I think you misunderstand me.

                Whether the treasury had the power to print money or create it through electronic transfer, makes no difference.  The actual real true value of the money would be realized when it enters circulation by rewarding man's productivity involved in the maintainance and creation of new infrastructure.

                Man wil be earning his money, then spending it into circulation.

                Currently, man's productivity is what's backing our dollar.  However, it isn't man's current productivity, it is his future productivity, because he borrowed the money, and spent it into circulation before earning it!

                This borrowed money also carries an interest debtload on it, and takes away some of that man's expendable income.

                If we can monetize man's future productivity through loans, why can't we monetize his current productivity, by him earning before spending?

                I know my early post was lengthy, maybe you didn't read it.

                People can't seem to get the idea that I am not suggesting that the treasury is going to have anything to do with the money, other than create it.

                The money will not enter circulation, or (be monetized until man's productivity earns it, and then spends it into circulation).

                Paradise7 also intimates that I was suggesting just making more dollars and shoving them into the system.  None of the dollars that I am suggesting be created could enter the system, without first being earned, then spent in.

                I wish people would comprehend what they read, and read a thread in it's totality

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Jerryl, i'm reading everything your saying. It doesn't make any sense.

                  You are telling everyone the following:

                  1-The treasury will make money out of thin air (via electronic bank transfer).

                  2- This money will be spent on something (infrastructure, or roads, or whatever)

                  3- Then, somehow, even though there are now 500 billion new "dollars" (in any form whatsoever - paper, gold, silver, quarters, electronic money... whatever) that all the money before the creation will be worth EXACTLY the same amount as it was before.

                  You're telling EVERYONE HERE that WE'RE misunderstanding YOU when YOU say "If I had $500,000,000,000 that just appeared in my bank account, and then i started spending it... All the rest of the dollars in the world would still have EXACTLY The same value as before!"

                  This is nonsense. Not even Krugman would argue this. not even Friedman would argue this. Not even Keynes would argue this. -- -and THAT'S saying something.

                2. profile image61
                  gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  jerryl, I believe I THINK I understand your premise.
                  The problem is that the dollar bill (a specially printed piece of paper) is simply a promise from the buyer to the seller that the VALUE of the bill is an agreed upon amount and is backed (or upheld, if you will) by something of true worth and value. In other words, for every dollar bill floating around in circulation, there is an amount of gold, silver, platinum, diamond, or some other precious metal or mineral held in safekeeping that fulfills that promise.
                  In todays market, there is no backing of value for the dollar. It is simply accepted that a dollar is worth a dollar in gold or silver or whatever and that simply is not the case.
                  Take a bottle of wine. It's just fermented grape-juice. But if it has a particular color, fragrance, and aroma, that makes it more than just grape-juice. These are things that create VALUE to the wine.
                  Now take that bottle of wine and pour into a five gallon bucket of water. What do you have now? A diluted bottle of wine. That's what has happened to the dollar bill. It's diluted by our faith in it's value. The wine still has its original value, IF you can return it to its previous state. But as it is now, it is practically worthless. Adding more water and calling it wine will only make the situation worse.

                  So how do we fix that? Other than declaring a national bankruptcy and starting from scratch with some actual value backing our currency, I haven't a clue as to how to go about making it work. I just know that the value has to be real and not just perceived to be real.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Congress CAN amend the constitution - BUT THEY DON'T !!! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

              Jerryl - You keep demanding that "we're misunderstanding you"... we're not. You are misunderstanding yourself.

              Read these three sentences from the constitution:

              1- No State shall...emit Bills of Credit [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

              2- The Congress shall have Power To...COIN money.

              3- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

              You simply can NOT tell me - with a straight face, that is - that creating sheets of paper, electronic numbers in a bank account, or anything short of using gold and silver is Constitutional.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      oh thank god - I'm not alone! Thank you casgil!

  23. Paradise7 profile image84
    Paradise7posted 6 years ago

    Weirdly enough, I don't think money is the issue.  I think joblessness in America stems more from the shift from manufacturing to service businesses.  It's the winding down of a previously heavily industrial economy to one where we all seem to go to work in our cubes flying around our computer keyboards all day long without actually producing anything.  Aside from that, we can't really say at the end of our work day that we've actually made anything anyone would want.  There would be a much bigger trade deficit if we didn't export so much food from our practically human-free agribusinesses.

    And we import just as much cheap Walmart junk as we can shift.

    That's a big part of the sickness of our present economy.  The other big part is the enormous national debt, the good ole' Bush magnified beyond recovery after 9/11. 

    How to fix it???

    1.  Eliminate labor unions and the minimum wage.  Get competitive again with unskilled labor for manufacturing...
    2.  Eliminate welfare programs for people who are able-bodied adults. 
    3.  Devote resources to the research and developement of clean, fossil-fuel-free and nuclear-free power:  wind, solar...lightning, even.
    4.  Devote domestic military resources to actually winning the war on drugs.  Go in hard, for real...no more revolving door for drug pushers.
    5.  Restructure the tax system and federal expenditures to reduce, as much as possible, the national debt, and also look in exchanging the recusing of our national debt with other countries that owe us.


    This all sounds very hard-line and possibly undemocratic.  It sounds like back to the bad old days of sweatshops and Sinclair Lewis's "The Jungle", and is nothing to look forward to--but I believe it would solve the unemployment problem and re-stablize the American economy.


    Don't worry--it'll never happen, because, as several people have mentioned on this thread before, Americans' sense of entitlement is too great.  (Probably my own included.)

    1. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Paradise7,  You and I will have to agree to disagree.  Money drives everything, and when it's created as an evidence of debt to the people, eventually something has to give.

      1. Paradise7 profile image84
        Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, the creation of debt simultaneously with the devaluation of the currency has put us in big trouble...but we only did this to avoid the reality of all the factory jobs going away...not everyone can be a white-collar professional and still maintain a viable economy.  That just isn't real.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what's this? someone else demanding an end to minimum wage? the elimination of labor unions that aggressively prevent lower-wage accepting workers from taking jobs? eliminate welfare?

      ... oh man!! I'm yours if you'll take me!

      (Check out my "Evan's Easy Economics" hubs, you'll love em!)

  24. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Just execute all those lazy bums - and problem solved tongue

    1. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      MIsha,  I agree.  However you should have added (bought and paid for)

      1. Paradise7 profile image84
        Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Whoa, guys, I thought I was drastic...

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Umm, well, if you are THAT sensitive - hire one tenth of them to guard them while they are building concentration camps for themselves. Then use them for government owned enterprises, and lend them to government friends...

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hahahahahahahaha

            Oh misha, you so funnay!

            I especially like how people agreed with you

            1. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOL As funny as it is, this is how USSR and Nazi Germany approached the problem. I bet Mao and Fidel did the same. smile

  25. profile image61
    gryffonposted 6 years ago

    I'm hearing all kinds of things that seem reasonable, sound,and thoughtful or far-fetched and somewhat kooky.
    The reasons that I see, from my own experience, why joblessness is rampant are varied.

    First, the government is not and never was a viable solution. It takes a means of growing money to strengthen the economy and that can only be achieved in the private sector, from money exchanging hands for a service, fee or product. The government provides none of those. It simply takes money in from the private sector via taxes, and regurgitates it back in the form of some type of assistance program. It has the same effect as if I took the money from my left pocket and put in my right pocket. No growth and I'm no better off than I was before.

    Secondly, confidence in the economy has been eroded to the point where businesses are in a holding pattern, waiting to see what the government is going to do next. They want to know if the government is coming after them, so they are holding onto their money to be able to deal with whatever problems government throws their way.
    Think of it like this: A state has a large road building project on the books set to start, say in March of next year. But due to the economic downturn, funding for that project needs to be directed elsewhere. So the project is shelved. So the land for the project is not surveyed and bought (money changing hands), the land is not developed, i.e. cleared for the new road, drainage put in, as well as surrounding land surveyed and bought for industrial, commercial and/or residential use later once the road is finished. (More money changing hands) All that work, which doesn't seem like a whole lot right now, brings in people from other areas of the city, county, state and country and they bring their money. So the local businesses get a big influx of capitol which they can use to expand or reinvest into their businesses. This tends to create new jobs in the area. Now, once the project is finished, the surrounding lands will begin to be developed. Houses will be built, other businesses will be built, schools and hospitals, prisons and theaters, museums etc. And all these will need people to live and work in them. New jobs.
    All this stops when the bigger developers and businesses do not have the confidence to go ahead with their projects. They hold onto their money. And that creates a huge vacuum where money used to be.

    Third, that eroded confidence has reached its way down into the heart of the average consumer. The extra money that you saved up to add onto the house, well, it might be a better idea to hang onto that, 'just in case.' Now, that's surveyors, designers, construction contractors, concrete workers, carpenters, roofers, electricians, plumbers, windows, insulation, siding or brick masons, sheetrock, painters, flooring, furniture and appliances, curtains and all those little knickknacks that will not be bought. (money will not exchange hands) Ok, that was a big expenditure for Joe Sixpack and that doesn't happen ALL the time, but what about the vacation that you take every year. Whether it is a camping trip or a cruise, a visit to grandma and grandpa or a trip to a foreign country, it's money that will not be spent, 'just in case.'
    Now that's alright when it's just you and a few others in the neighborhood that are playing it safe, but when everyone is playing it safe, that means that money is locked up and not flowing, and just like a stream drying up can kill a town, money not flowing can kill a country.

    But still, why can't people get jobs?

    Well, one answer is what do you do for a living? If you went to college to be a business accountant, well, seems logical to me that that is the type of job you would like to get paid to do. If there are no accountant jobs in your area, well, I guess you're not going to be working anytime soon.
    And I know what you're thinking already. "Why don't you do something else until an accounting job comes down the pike?"

    Ok,(sigh), here we go.

    While you were living the American dream, working for a living, trying to better yourself, you got married, had a kid (or two or three), bought a house, got rid of the old jalopy and got a newer model vehicle. So now you have a family to provide for, a house to pay for, a vehicle to pay off as well as deal with all the wonderful surprises that Life has a tendency to throw at you, like braces for your kid, your spouses sudden medical needs, as well as dealing with your parents and siblings potential life changing problems.
    So you NEED to make $X amount of money (which you made doing the job your were educated for and well experienced at) but you can't find a job that will pay you that amount. Now those jobs are out there, but the companies want people with experience in those jobs, which you do not have AND they are not going to just give to you through learning on the job. They would rather wait for someone with the experience to come along rather than take a chance on you and train you to do the job.

    I am not in that boat. I am in a different boat all together.
    I was in Land Surveying for the past seven years. I loved it. It was interesting, I was always learning something new (I had really good supervisors above me) and I worked outdoors and I was always working someplace new. Then I got laid off. I knew right away that it was going to be real difficult to get another job soon and I was right. So, I went on unemployment. All the factors that I mentioned prior are true with me as well. I enjoy surveying and I would like to get paid doing just that. I have financial obligations that require I make $x amount per month to be able to pay my bills. On unemployment, I was making enough, barely. So I figured I'd wait it out and see. Only it got worse, and worse, and worse. People were losing their jobs that they had had for several years. Some were a couple of years from retirement and they got the boot. And then it got close to where unemployment was going to run out. So I said I'll have to reconfigure my budget and find anything that I could.

    Now, here's the problem.
    I used to, back in the eighties and nineties, be able to pick up the paper, go to a couple places, fill out an application and get an interview, all in the same day, in just a couple of hours. You had a feel for how genuine the offer was and if you fit into the job and all that. Then you knew if you had a chance at getting the job.
    Now, you can only apply online to most places. I can't tell you how many places I've called to ask if they were hiring, only to be referred to their website.
    So, off to their cold and impersonal website I go to fill out an application in which they require a resume for a job as a cashier, maintenance man or order puller in a warehouse. Not only that, but they require 5 - 8 years experience for a position that you know deep down that you can do because it falls into the category of the household chores you did as a kid.
    So you go through all that, and then you find out that most of those jobs posted on the site are not even hiring right now. They post them so that they will have a wealth of prospects to draw from if they need to get rid of someone, or they want to find someone who will do the job cheaper.

    So what's a fella to do? You can't get the job you want to do and you can't get the job you'd hate to do but will take just to get by. And these are basically jobs that are not much more than minimum wage.
    So what do YOU think?

    1. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Gryffon,   In my early post,  It was stated  by John B Henderson, senior specialist in price economics,  that  "money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred,  money is extinguished when loans are repaid.".

      Think about this.  During recessions and depressions, when unemployment runs rampant, bills do not stop coming in.

      Even though you may be unemployed, you must still make that car or house payment, or lose it.

      Every time you make a loan payment, the principal  amount of that payment  is erased from the books, and reduces that actual amount of money existing in circulation.
      However, the interest debt that no money was created to pay, is always there to take the big bite out of you.

      If you are unemployed, you are not producing, and not adding to the money  supply in circulation.  Add to that, that you are helping deplete the unemployment compensation funds. 

      When unemployment funds run out, the government must borrow more to make the additional funds available.  This goes on our citizens national credit card, or the national debt, which we pay more interest to service.

      More debt!

      What a system!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And yet, the bozos keep buying crap!

  26. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Quel mess we have on our hands.
    I don't think any one solution will solve the problem.
    Although the idea of nationalized service could create work for Americans in the short term, it creates a new layer(s) of government to monitor and control the output.
    Do we really want to pattern ourselves on USSR?

    We are looking at entire industries that are disappearing. Brick and mortar businesses are giving way to online businesses.
    The outflux of customer service jobs overseas -- are these jobs America wants back? Are Americans willing to work for the same wages as workers in India and other places that are taking these jobs?

    Then there is the whole issue of (lack of) education. We are, as a nation, getting dumber (and fatter). That phenomenon, combined with a sense of entitlement, put us at a competitive disadvantage.

    So all of that is MM's long-winded way of saying this:
    1. We are a capitalist country. That is what we are. We need to incent businesses to stay here and to employ American workers.
    2. Who's going to do this incenting? Well, it can only be the feds. Here I would propose a "carrot" approach -- you prove that you've hired and are employing Americans and we'll cut you a tax break. Not the other way around, because (sorry, I do not believe in the benevolance of business) they will take the tax cuts, outsource staff jobs and still pay their execs outrageously.
    3. Someone mentioned a revolt. Can't honestly picturing this happening, but how about a shareholder revolt? What if the value of a business was shifted to include how many Americans they employ?
    4. Finally, education is key. We MUST do a better job equipping our young people with workable brains. And, from personal experience, I think we should give them a dose of economic reality to break their sense of entitlement. Here is where a couple of years of national service -- maybe from 18-20 could be valuable.

    Thanks for letting me spout. As you can see, I'm much better at outlining the problem than offering feasible, economically sound solutions.

    How about next we cover World Peace=)?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      nonsense! please watch this video for my rebuttal. Read the book in question as well.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8F6oIG … feature=iv

      This video and this book changed my life - I used to be a "government needs to fund everything! and government needs to incentivize businesses to do X" person.

      Honest to god, I really did. Ask my relatives- they hated me.

      After watching that video and reading the book... WOW!! my eyes are open, baby! Government is the problem, not the solution.

  27. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    Without singleing out anyone, I don't think people really understand our current monetary system.

    Greece is in debt with over 100% debt to GDP ratio.

    We have the same debt system here.  How long before the debt builds to where we go down the drain?

    Wake up!!!!  This system is continually adding to our indebtedness.  It must be changed.  We cannot pay debt with debt!

    If a burglar broke into your home and stole from you, you would be hounding the police for action.

    The federal reserve fractional banking system has been robbing us blind for our entire lives, yet nothing is done.  Apathy reigns!  Solve unemployment?  Not gonna happen until we change this crooked ponzi scheme.  We will have high unemployment for a long time, and eventually it will get worse.

  28. puebloman profile image60
    pueblomanposted 6 years ago

    Yes, there was great enthusiasm for concentration camps during the second world war. Especially among Slavs, Poles and Germans who were keen on the "racial" extermination of people they defined as subhuman. The reason that so many of the American ruling class (John F Kennedy's dad for example) were enthusiasts for Hitler was because they thought he'd solved Germany's unemployment problem during the slump. He did this by WAGING WAR. It puts you into terrible debt of course, and once you've started you can never stop, but everyone has a job. You need a long winded and futile war, a war involving the call up. That way the poor and badly educated get maimed and killed and the rich and influential get to stay at home and profiteer. Like they did in Vietnam, except the USA couldn't keep that war going and getting bigger. Like I say, once you start you mustn't stop. I can't think of a contemporary war suitable for escalation though. Any suggestions?

    1. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hitler was just one of the minor tyrants during the Stalin era. And you guys loved Stalin much more than Hitler, and still do wink

      1. Paradise7 profile image84
        Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Misha, you're joking, right????  Americans love STALIN????

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          When Hitler was your enemy, Stalin was your friend smile

          As for nowadays, you definitely despise him on words (nowhere close to Hitler though), but you gladly follow his course. I am quite serious about concentration camps, you guys are heading this way...

          1. Sab Oh profile image59
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think "friend" really describes it. It was an alliance of convenience at most.

            And how are we headed toward concentration camps, and who would be concentrated in them?

            1. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever it was you helped the greater evil to defeat the lesser evil. smile

              http://hubpages.com/search/include:hubs … centration

              For those who disagree with government policy mostly, then those who are not friends with government employees doing investigation job for such cases. smile

              1. Sab Oh profile image59
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Whatever it was you helped the greater evil to defeat the lesser evil."

                More like working with an inevitable enemy to defeat an immediate enemy.

                "For those who disagree with government policy mostly"

                I don't see it. Administrations change too frequently, America is too politically divided and not divided enough in other ways, and US citizens tend to be an armed, violent bunch.

                1. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  How exactly Hitler was an immediate enemy to the USA? As for concentration camps - I hope you are right, but  don't hold my breath...

                  1. Sab Oh profile image59
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "How exactly Hitler was an immediate enemy to the USA?"

                    You're kidding, right?

                    "As for concentration camps - I hope you are right"

                    I am, so kick back, have a drink and check one care off your list!

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                HA! Right on - I saw some guy reading a book by Marx and he had a picture of Chariman Mao on his book bag!!!

                Americans honestly think that These jerks - who are, together, responsible for more deaths than hitler -- are good people!!

                It's amazing.

                I was staring at the bag in disgust, he looked at me, i looked at him like "why?! how?!" and then we went our separate ways. I don't think I'll ever forget that bus ride.

                1. Sab Oh profile image59
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Americans honestly think that These jerks - who are, together, responsible for more deaths than hitler -- are good people!! "



                  Not most Americans.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    thank goodness

                2. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Stalin and Mao each killed way more people than Hitler. He holds only the third place for XX century atrocities...

  29. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Right! Kinda like "I can't be overdrawn. I still have checks left!"

    1. Paradise7 profile image84
      Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hah!!!  First laugh I got from the forums today, though I must say, this particular thread is about the best in a long time as far as interesting responses.

  30. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey Jerryl,

    You do realize that the term "money", which refers to "paper money", and not currency is the problem.

    The Federal Reserve Bank does NOT issue legal currency for the U.S. nor does it create money out of thin air- "paper money" does require materials to make and it's those costs that hurt.

    The Federal Reserve Bank issues IOU's and not actual monetized currency. All "paper money" issued is a promise to pay, backed by the U.S. Economy's power, the basis for the valuation is on foreign oil sources.

    I do not see how you, changing the location and the timing in which people are paid, would work properly. It seems as though your idea would run the entire system to a crawl, where growth would be lucky if it's 1% a year or less. That certainly doesn't sound like a sound strategy.

    1. Sab Oh profile image59
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The Federal Reserve Bank does NOT issue legal currency for the U.S.

      The Federal Reserve Bank issues IOU's and not actual monetized currency. "

      Yes it does. It does not produce the actual money but it does distribute it via the regional federal reserve banks that then lend to banks around the country. The fed serves an important function in controling the amount of currency in circulation at any given time.

  31. Research Analyst profile image78
    Research Analystposted 6 years ago

    I think that providing apprenticeships in industries that are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers can be implemented to train those who are unemployed to replace those who are retiring. This will require forethought and commitment to teach new skills to those who do not have them, as well as a willingness on the part of those looking for work to learn the skills necessary.

  32. waynet profile image48
    waynetposted 6 years ago

    Sack all the illegal immigrants and then give Americans their jobs back.....a one sided view, but hey it speaks a portion of truth.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      nah, it's all nonsense. All Americans are immigrants - we are all immigrants from the mysterious land of "storkovia" - we come to this land being carried in the  mouth of a giant white bird called a stork.

      Here's a video showing my arrival to this land of the free:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfohJY_2i4

      To put it a more dramatic way - we're all immigrants from the land of "non-existence". We can't blame our troubles on immigrants because they work hard for lower wages! - This brings prices down, and our paychecks can pay for more - thus we all get richer.

      But in more seriousness, if you want Americans to do the jobs around here, eliminate minimum wage and let the market work. Companies wouldn't send our tech-support questions to india if it were LEGAL to offer an American $5/hour to do it!

      1. profile image61
        gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh, so many, many things that we have to take into consideration here.

        1. Americans would do the jobs that illegal immigrants do IF they were paid a wage that they could live on. It's not just a matter of not buying what you can't afford, it's a matter of being able to afford to buy the things you need to be able to survive in todays society and economy. Today, in order to get a fairly decent job, you need to have your own reliable transportation. Otherwise, you're stuck on somebody else's  timetable, which more often than not, conflicts with the work schedule you are given. Not only that, but it makes other necessary tasks easier to do, such as grocery shopping, going to the doctor, cashing your check, paying bills and other things as well.

        2. While education is extremely important to get along in society, let alone get ahead, there are times when I believe that it is very over rated. Most companies are looking for some sort of education beyond high school. And while I can understand that criteria for some professions, I'm at a loss to understand why it is needed for a job that they are going to train you to do their way anyway. I mean, the law is the law, the way you contest or defend the law is set in stone. So learning those ways is good. And whether you go to a law firm in Texas or Vermont, you're going to do things the same way. Same goes for medicine, or scientific research and development, and other professions. But when they want further education to work in a warehouse, or on an assembly line or to do things that are closely related to some the chores you had to do when you were a kid, it borders on the insane in my opinion.

        3. I'm all for experience. To me it's better than book learning in some cases. (I'd really want the doctor who's going to enlarge my penis for me to have actually cracked a book or two on the procedure) But the dilemma arises when people can not get hired without prior experience. It falls into the same category as #2 above, they are going to train you to do it their way regardless. Now I understand you don't someone without prior experience to be working on million dollar equipment, but I'm not talking about higher levels of employment. I'm referring to entry level positions that you would have to take anyway if you're changing careers.

        4. Unions are one of the major reasons that the cost of living has risen as much as it has over the years. I agree and understand the purpose and function of the unions to protect the rights of the workers from abusive and unfair working conditions. To that aspect of their creation, they have functioned admirably. But those days are over and the absolute need for unions, in my opinion, is in the past. They have now become nothing more than a political hammer to wield during campaigns. When workers wages have to be renegotiated every two or three years, or benefits, the cost of whatever they are producing goes up to compensate for the loss in the companies profit. So a loaf of bread goes from fifty cents to a dollar, and every consumer bears the burden of better insurance benefits and wage increases at the local bread factory.

        Now we've all been airing our bitches and complaints about what we think about our system, whether it's broken or no, fixable or not, etc. But above it all, there is absolutely no denying that America is still the greatest country on earth. The fact that illegal immigration is so rampant simply proves my point. People are willing to break the law for a chance at a better life in America than in their own country. As messed up as our healthcare system is, people are coming here to America to have medical procedures done rather than in their home country where they have a health system that we are headed towards. People would rather come to America for their higher education than anywhere else in the world. That's not to say that we are the beast in the world, but simply put, we offer better chances of enrollment, and we are better than most.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "4. Unions are one of the major reasons that the cost of living has risen as much as it has over the years."

          Unions at one time, long ago, were a major contributor to inflation. Currently, only 6.9% of private sector workers are unionized thanks to structural changes in our economy--manufacturing jobs outsourced to China and other low wage countries and an increase in high tech jobs which are not usually subject to unionization. Union avoidance by employers has also been a factor in the decline in unionization.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Some might argue that point smile

  33. profile image0
    DoorMattnomoreposted 6 years ago

    actually I wasnt kidding. to end joblesness...people shold take the job. easy. Plus, dont spend money you dont have.

    1. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It will pass pretty soon I think. Unions and minimum wages are a bigger problem. smile

      1. profile image0
        DoorMattnomoreposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        unions killed america. I know they started out with good intent..but holy crap.....I live in a "mill" state. Every mill but two is gone. shut down. in the whole state. because of unions.. "thats not my job...." the joe schmo that owned the operation just could not afford the wages and all that. they all went belly up and now everyone who can work is forced to pay for all the a-holes who wont.

        I really believe the biggest thing is being responsable for your own actions.

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, totally agree smile

          1. profile image0
            DoorMattnomoreposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            smile

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ah, good ol' minimum wage!

        "But it makes sure we all have money!!"

        It does so by making things cost more, thus no wealth is actually generated.

        "But it protects the poor"

        No, actually it keeps the poor poor. IF you can't produce 7.50/hour at a job, then you will be fired, or you just won't be hired.

        It's a plague.

  34. Ben Evans profile image73
    Ben Evansposted 6 years ago

    Just a little book keeping here. 

    Congress cant by itself change the constitution.  It needs to pass 2/3 of each house and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    or

    By a convention called by 2/3 of the states legislatures and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. (Which by the way has never been done)

    1. profile image61
      gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I beg to differ, Ben. When the Constitution started out, there were originally TEN amendments. Our BILL of RIGHTS. There are now 27 Amendments. So that, " which by the way has never been done," has been done about 17 times.

      What I think the argument is about is, in todays day and age, getting the consent of the governed (the people) to agree to an amendment that would achieve what has been proposed here on HUBS. That is going to be near impossible when the main issue, when you boil it all down to its essential components, is about the disagreement between those who have not and those who have.

      If a farmer tells me that if I go out and harvest ten acres for him, he'll give me three for myself and keep seven for himself and I agree with it, then I have to live with that decision. Now if you go out and negotiate a 10 and five deal with the same farmer, that's between you and the farmer. I'm not going to say that I do not like it, but it is a fair deal no matter what I think because it's an agreement between you two. I should have negotiated a better deal for myself or I could take my business elsewhere.

      Now on the other hand, if the farmer takes half of the three acres he owes me and just gives to someone who hasn't done a lick of work to deserve it, well, now I'm gonna give a hoot and holler about what for, you can bet.

      So the haves have managed to work out a better deal than the have nots and are resented for that fact. But tell me when you have not taken advantage of a situation to better yourself. You knew someone who worked where you wanted to get hired on and asked them to put in a good word for you. Now that might not seem like much, but it makes a big difference when somebody who needed the job more than you did lost out because you were able to negotiate from a point of advantage and they couldn't. The point of advantage being that you knew someone on the inside and they didn't.

      As long as the political parties continue to tout that simple difference of opinion, and people continue to buy into that difference, there will always be contention and progress will forever be slow and ponderous at best.

      1. Ben Evans profile image73
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, you are correct that there are 27 and yes it has been pasased 17 times.  Now the thing that has not happened is there has not been a constitutional convention.  That is why I put the parenthesis after the second way to pass an amendment.  This just means that this method has never been used to pass an amendment.  I think you must have misunderstood what I was saying.

        Now, I said nothing about how hard it would be to pass an amendment.  I did not argue anything else in the post in which you replied.  All I said is the two ways an amendment can be passed.  Other than that I have been out of the loop.

        I hope I cleared things up.

        1. profile image61
          gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I stand corrected. There never has been an "application of Legislatures," or a convention to propose Amendments. And I would think that my prior reasoning would still hold water as to how such a convention would fare. Not that it couldn't or wouldn't be effective, but that it would be nearly impossible to conduct to a satisfactory conclusion.

          I would have to say that our forefathers were very adamant in their prospective beliefs for the welfare of our country. No less adamant than our present herd of representatives today. The biggest difference I think I perceive is that our forefathers were more willing to look at and see, and therefore conduct themselves in the best interests of the "Bigger Picture" concerning the country. While I am convinced that some of the founders were just as much in love with the sound of their own voices as todays politicians, I firmly would like to believe that in order for America to make the strides that it has made, that they were willing to, although reluctantly, shut the hell up when it was deemed necessary. And I fear that ability has not been effectively passed down to their successors.

  35. MikeNV profile image72
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    The solution is jobs?  Am I right?

  36. double_frick profile image81
    double_frickposted 6 years ago

    i'm an idealist.
    i go for a model somewhat like the venus project...google it, its interesting.
    basically, i heard a person say one time (i will not say the source of the quote, you'll LOL at me haha) "WHY DO YOU PAY TO LIVE ON A PLANET YOU WERE BORN ON?"

    I def. feel that we are effectively slaves, so-to-speak, in many different ways. but our most important, and most limiting, master happens to be our SELF.

    anyways...i think everything should be free and we should all do what we love and follow our passions knowing that as a society we will not starve and so as individuals there is more than enough to go around. anarchy...but not in a shoot-em-up, praise violence kinda anarchy...more like, self responsibility.

    anyways, i digress...
    cags,
    my answer is: to fix any problem we have to fix the root of all the problems, we have to transform our society.
    we have to evolve.

  37. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 6 years ago

    Cooperation. Community. Getting back to basics. Keeping a local economy. Helping the neighbor in need.

    Simple stuff, really.

    Community gardens, too. wink

  38. profile image62
    Rainboposted 6 years ago

    I am of the opinion that instead of throwing money at big business, we should be giving help to smaller businesses.   The loss of so many small businesses isn't just the loss of jobs, its the loss of community.  Both go hand in hand.

  39. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
    Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago

    Revisit the notion of "profit maximization."

  40. sir slave profile image59
    sir slaveposted 6 years ago

    If we can pass a 900 billion dollar tax cut package or spend 100 billion a year on an un-winnable war, I suppose we can spare a few billion for a public works program to stimulate the economy for as year or so!

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It didn't work in the great depression and it never works.  government make work programs only make work for as long as they are funded.  Are we supposed to give 8 million people shovels having half dig holes and the other half fill them in for ever?

    2. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You have no understanding of the fundamental basis of a Nation works. hmm

      1. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Support the president

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's even worse than what I originally responded to in the first place.

          Support the President? Really. hmm Couldn't you come up with a better solution than that? Seriously. hmm

          1. junko profile image79
            junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            cagsil: who do you support? What's your solution?

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Who do I support? I am in support of what is right. The only way to fix any jobless problem would be to deal with the issue on it's fundamental key ingredient.

              Educate people the proper way to utilize America's way of life. wink

              1. junko profile image79
                junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                THE PRESIDENT AGREES WITH YOU ON EDUCATING THE PEOPLE. NOW WE NEED JOB FOR THE EDUCATED PEOPLE.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You scream often? I would hope not, then you wouldn't get much accomplished. Please refresh yourself with online etiquette.

                  On your notion that the President believe in Education is the right way to go, is just him telling the public what it wants to hear.

                  Education is only ONE ingredient in the solution, it is not the solution.

                  I said- Educate the people on the proper way to America's way of life. If you're not familiar with what that means, then say so. Don't go off half-cocked, screaming your irrelevant statements.

                  1. junko profile image79
                    junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry I wrote in caps, I notice what I did but... Do you mean by proper, the constitution?

  41. profile image0
    King Larryposted 6 years ago

    Lower taxes to increase jobs.  Pull a Vietnam like exit from the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Or, make it highly illegal for any media to film and/or document any military activity; outside of what the military approves of.  I think the main problem why we haven't fully been able to keep the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan in control more is because the damn media scrutinizes and analyzes every single thing our troops do that it's ridiculous. No journalist has the right to be out there to get in our troops way.  It's a war folks, so let the soldiers do their jobs and fight it.  Who cares about the enemies' rights, as you really think they care about our troops' right when they're captured?  Seriously?  No, I think if O'Bama really wants to help reduce military costs and help out our troops in the war on terror, then he needs to outlaw media from ever going to war zones period.  they just get in the way, and have no right to be there.

    secondly, I think churches should start to pay taxes.  yes, I did just say they should be taxed.  Not that i have anything against the churches in america, but desperate times call for desperate measures. 

    another thing that needs to be done is to legalize many illegal drugs like marijuana.  no, im not some pot head, as i don't do drugs.  sure, i may drink the occasional margarita for fun on occasions, but that's like once in every three months or so.  Not only would this reduce the crime rate, but the taxes on those same drugs would help out a lot of state governments, as well as create a lot of jobs to help legalize and regulate it. 

    Granted, even if you do follow every single thing I just said, there's always going to be problems.  As a perfect society doesn't exist.  There's always going to be troubles and controversies in our society, until we get down to the very root of the problem.  However, I doubt we ever will, as you have to remember in a society that's built on bureaucracy it's next to impossible to get anything significant done to change things.

  42. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    deport all the illegals. That seems like the most obvious solution.

  43. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    no not all the problem but it's all start.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting you say that. It's not even a major problem compared to the many other problems. Illegals are the least of the problems. lol But, at least you're thinking. wink

      1. Diane Inside profile image86
        Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        your so condescending you know that

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I gave you credit for thinking. What more do you want? hmm

          How on Earth is that condescending? Please explain.

          1. Diane Inside profile image86
            Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            and exasperating as well.

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I can see, you don't like being shown the error of your ways.

              I ask you to explain your comment, yet you don't. Because, there was nothing in my statement that was condescending.

              1. Diane Inside profile image86
                Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                what I can't figure out is why you haven't ran for President yet?

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Because, I have no need for fame, fortune, power and never agreed with politics. wink

                  1. Diane Inside profile image86
                    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, okay.

                2. evvy_09 profile image81
                  evvy_09posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Cagsil for President!

                  http://s3.hubimg.com/u/4496174.jpg

    2. evvy_09 profile image81
      evvy_09posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's a start but not the whole solution.  Revising the system that encourages people to come here illegally and be able to work without being a citizen is another step.

  44. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    king larry you sly dog

  45. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago

    well there's a lot of issues here at play, and it's not an easy one to answer.  However, I will say this.  I think any solution we come up with isn't going to be a quick fix overnight solution, as anyone that knows about politics will tell you that changes take years before we'll even see the results of them.

  46. tritrain profile image75
    tritrainposted 6 years ago

    Part of getting unemployment should be community service or education.

    Not sitting at home, watching soap operas.



    There are plenty of volunteer opportunities out there.  Some of them may even lead to another path in life and a new job.

  47. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    More infrastructure and green energy projects. Tax reform and simplification for corporations and individuals. Adopt a firm plan for balancing the federal budget to be implemented when unemployment is reduced considerably. Continue low interest rates so along as inflation remains close to zero percent. Training and transition assistance for jobless workers. Force the banks to get off their butts and negotiate mortgage adjustments/workouts for anyone who is employed and capable meeting reduced mortgage payments.

  48. profile image61
    jbsilverposted 6 years ago

    Jobs were lost when manufactures decided to open plants in foreign countries for cheap labor less environmental laws and more profits. Since the goods have to be shipped back to the US heavy taxes should be applied. For the record Unions don't price themselves out of a job they ask for a small piece of the pie they help to bake. After carefully looking at the profit margins.

  49. Smkmdb11 profile image60
    Smkmdb11posted 6 years ago

    All these long summaries. The solution is simple and history teaches us this. Free market and capitalism has the answers to just about every economic problem this country is facing. The longest post on here started with, "is America is the richest nation, how is the most debtful" <rough phrase>

    The answer is in the facts. President Obama has loaded up these debts faster (and higher) than any President in the history of this country. Enough said.

    Get a Conservative in office and we'll see a change. All these people still blaming Bush for the problems when it's been over 2 years. Apmle time to institute his solutions. He has instituted only bad Chicago style politics.

    Don't forget that, albeit a month (and the timeframe around this month was nothing short of GREAT) Bush had the unemployment rate at it's lowest in the last 60 years. If you look through history, most liberal Presidents have instituted one or two programs, here and there, that completely go against the Constitution and the well being of the country.

    The Constitution is not a living document and cannot be changed to suit the needs of progressive socialists and their anti-capitalist views.

    Not to lengthy.

    1. profile image61
      jbsilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has to pay bills created by Bush that came due. Plus couple Bush created debts with to days economy you can't help but spend more money. So do you, for goods and services. You have to be pretty narrow sighted to use this as an argument. I wouldn't matter who was in office. That person would be in the same boat as the present administration.

  50. uncorrectedvision profile image60
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=49826

    A video from the people who fought alone for two years until the US entered the war.  Be careful what you ask for.

 
working