"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

So.... basically, one way or another people have to
pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or
paying in taxes for a government program.


Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan.
However,
it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most
obvious is corporate profits today. Product quality is dropping
(plastics),
wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped
much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. Perhaps a
mechanism
to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that
is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar
question). I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a
cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase
in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors
effecting workers). This will drive some marginal companies out of
business
(the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. But, over a several
year
period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out
of
business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product
prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market.


You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we started developing
shortages. Other countries in the world have tried it too and also failed.
Every where that has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So why try what has
already been proven to fail.

Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars, quote percentage
of operating expenses. If expenses are say 100 trillion, then a profit of 1
trillion (1%) is so dangerously low that the company is on the verge of
going bankrupt. Any company only making a 1% profit has difficulty getting
investors, difficulty in getting expansion capital, and has no safety margin
to ride out an economic downturn. On the other hand, let's take another
case. If a small business has operating expenses of $100 and makes a profit
of $1000 then that is an obscene profit since it is 10 times the operating
expense. So you see just quoting a dollar figure doesn't tell the whole
story.

[snip] However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic
impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph
requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the
most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust
economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.

However, history has proven that it is not possible to predict the results
of these "minor" regulatory actions. At this point in time no one is
knowledgeable enough to do so and it's better to let the system react to the
free market principles.

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better to
serve the US market with cars made in the US. The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE