What Would You Do to Improve Job Growth?

Reason asks economists, writers, and wonks for real ways to increase job growth

Robert Higgs, Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Amity Shlaes, John Stossel, Donald J. Boudreaux, Bryan Caplan, Bruce Bartlett, Jeffrey Miron, John Berlau, Allan Meltzer, Ira Stoll, Walter Olson, Peter Schiff, Alex Tabarrok, Fred Smith, and Lucy Steigerwald | 8.12.2011 12:00 PM

Faced with a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, a deeply disgruntled public and a creeping election season, President Barack Obama is hastily "pivoting" away from the debt ceiling debate toward jobs. In Michigan, where the unemployment rate is 10.5 percent, the president recently proclaimed "We know that there are things that we can do right now that will support job growth." Things like building roads, extending unemployment benefits, cutting payroll taxes, and that old standby, clean energy.

Like Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blames partisan bickering in Washington for the nation's economic woes and recently accused Republicans of having "passed bills that would destroy up to 2 million jobs—nearly 10,000 jobs per day" in the 200 days since she was booted from her role as House speaker. Pelosi, of course, is an old hand at job pivotry. She prefers her jobs bought and paid for by federal money, and in a pleasing shade of green.

Republicans have their own jobs agenda, but mostly prefer to talk trash about the Democrats. "Spurring jobs and the economy is always next on the Obama Administration's to-do list," sniped Current House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in an August 3 blog post, "right after more spending, more taxing, and more regulating."

Meanwhile, the American people are raising a collective skeptical eyebrow at both parties on the employment front. A July Pew Research poll showed an even 39-39 split on which party Americans trust more on jobs. But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that only 29 percent of respondents think there will be more jobs in their communities a year from now—and 26 percent think there will be fewer jobs.

In an effort to produce real free-market ideas for boosting employment, Reason asked some of our favorite economists, writers, professors, and entrepreneurs for one concrete policy change they would recommend that would increase job growth. —Lucy Steigerwald

Robert Higgs

Repeal of ObamaCare would probably do wonders to spur hiring, especially for permanent positions. Compensation for such jobs usually includes a benefits package with health care insurance, as well as a money wage or salary. Health care insurance often constitutes a major part of the employer's cost of keeping a permanent worker on the payroll, and anything that makes this cost difficult to forecast makes employers leery to take on new workers.

ObamaCare—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—is a gigantic statute, and it would be a big bite for employers to digest in any event. But as it stands, it serves mainly as an announcement that a large number of legal black boxes must be filled with new regulations that various administrative agencies will eventually promulgate. As Gary Lawson has written recently, "Implementation of the Act will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations that will determine its substantive content and coverage."

This situation creates tremendous uncertainty that affects virtually all firms. After all, no matter how firms may differ in other regards, they all hire employees, and in most cases employee compensation amounts to a major part of their total cost of operation. Repeal of ObamaCare would have many benefits, but surely a great benefit would be the removal of an ominous cloud of uncertainty about a critical matter that now hangs over the entire labor market. In the face of this uncertainty, few firms have been, or will be, willing to assume the risk associated with increasing their permanent, full-time workforce.

Robert Higgs is a senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute. He is the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Criticial Episodes in the Growth of American Government, and several other books.

Deirdre McCloskey

"Jobs" are deals between workers and employers, and so "creating" them out of unwilling parties is impossible. The state, though, can outlaw deals, and has. So: eliminate the minimum wage for people younger than 25. The resulting boom in jobs for young people will amaze. Maybe it will inspire voters to get the state out of the job-outlawing business. Probably not, so sure are we that the state "protects" by stopping deals between willing parties.

Deirdre McCloskey is a professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and author of The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce.

Amity Shlaes

The single thing the U.S. could do to ensure long-term growth, including that of jobs, is to reform our Federal Reserve so that monetary policy is rules-based, not personality-based. Even a return to the gold standard would do, though it is also possible to fashion a monetary regime under which the currency is pegged to a basket of commodities.

Amity Shlaes is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Her biography of Calvin Coolidge will be released next spring.

John Stossel

Close the Departments of Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, and HUD, then eliminate three fourths of all regulations.

John Stossel's show Stossel airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. on Fox Business Network. He contributes a regular column to Reason.com.

Donald Boudreaux

My answer (within the realm of "remotely politically possible") is: Replace all income taxes, including that on capital gains, with a consumption tax. But do this only if the Constitution is amended to prevent government from taxing incomes and capital gains.

A second, less radical, proposal is to eliminate capital gains taxes and amend the Constitution to prevent Uncle Sam from taxing personal and corporate incomes at marginal rates higher than 20 percent.

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, and blogs at Cafe Hayek.

Bryan Caplan

Easy: Cut employers' share of the payroll tax.

Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He is the author of The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, and most recently, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think.

Bruce Bartlett

I don't believe there is any way to increase employment significantly without raising the rate of economic growth. Therefore, the real question is how to raise economic growth. I continue to believe that the economy's fundamental problem is a lack of aggregate demand.

I think a dose of inflation is just what the economy needs and libertarians should stop being so obsessive about it. Moreover, I think at some point they need to admit that the Fed cannot raise aggregate demand by itself when the economy is in a liquidity trap, which it obviously is based on the level of interest rates being close to zero.

Under these circumstances, I believe that some form of aggressive fiscal policy is necessary to get money circulating, raise the velocity of money, and get the economy out of a liquidity trap. I do not believe, under current circumstances, there is any type of tax cut that would achieve this goal; only direct spending by the government on purchases of goods and services will help. Therefore, the Fed will, somehow or other, have to figure out how to raise aggregate demand by itself.

The only other thing I can think of to raise growth would be a deliberate devaluation of the dollar, which would raise exports. Theoretically, the Fed could buy as much foreign currency as necessary to bring the dollar down. But this is impractical because foreign countries can retaliate by buying dollars with their own currency or impose restrictions on U.S. imports. Any policy of devaluation would be strenuously opposed domestically by those who are obsessed with the idea that the dollar should be strong regardless of the economic conditions.

I realize that everything I have just said is totally contrary to the libertarian worldview. However, I believe that implementation of libertarian policies, such as cutting spending and tightening monetary policy, under current economic conditions will only make it worse. I support any regulatory measure anyone can think of to reduce unemployment, but am disinclined to think there are any that will have more than a trivial effect under current macroeconomic conditions.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official under George H.W. Bush. His most recent book is The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.

Jeffrey Miron

Policymakers should stop worrying about job growth. Instead, they should focus on eliminating economic policies that impede economic efficiency—runaway entitlements, a horrendous tax code, excessive regulation, impediments to free trade, and more—and then let the job situation fix itself.

Jeffrey Miron is the director of undergraduate studies and a professor of economics at Harvard University.

John Berlau

Repeal portions of the Bush-era Sarbanes-Oxley Act to make it easier for smaller companies to raise capital by going public, and thus expand and create thousands more jobs.

Repeal portions of last year's Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which has created hundreds of pending rules causing uncertainty and a halt in hiring for everyone from banks and credit unions to retailers and manufacturers that extend credit or hedge financial risks with derivatives.

Pass the bipartisan Small Business Lending Enhancement Act—S. 509 by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), and in HR 1418, by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.)—to lift the aribitrary cap on business lending by credit unions. The Credit Union National Association estimates that easing this barrier would create over 140,000 jobs in the first year and thousands more in the years after that.

John Berlau is director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Allan Meltzer

We have made the mistake of using short-term policy changes to try to cope with a long-term problem. There are several long-term changes called for. There is great uncertainty and lack of confidence in the future. That reduces investment and employment. One change that would reduce uncertainty is a five-year moratorium on new regulation except for national security. Another would be a budget agreement that made the debt sustainable. Not likely. Third; corporate tax rate reduction paid for by closing loopholes. Finally, we need assurance that we won't have inflation. A credible, enforced inflation target would work.

Allan Meltzer is a professor of economics and the political economy at the Carnegie Mellon University Kepper School of Business.

Ira Stoll

Congress should stop extending unemployment benefits, and better yet, restructure the unemployment insurance program or block-grant it to the states to allow them to experiment with ways of doing so. The idea is to change the program so it creates an incentive for recipients to get a job, rather than an incentive for them to remain unemployed.

This could involve altering the unemployment benefit formula so that the amount of the payment gradually decreases over time, reducing the propensity of beneficiaries to stay on unemployment until they frantically search for a job and find it just as the benefits run out.

Or it could involve allowing states "the flexibility to convert their unemployment insurance payments from checks sent to the jobless into vouchers that can be used by companies to hire workers," as Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Alter suggests, relaying an idea from a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, Alan Khazei.

Or it could involve changing the program so recipients get a hefty share of their benefits up front, as a lump sum. They can then use the money as capital to start small businesses. Or if they find a job quickly, they can save or invest or spend the money. (No repeat passes, though; the idea is to increase incentives for finding or creating a job, not rewards for people who get themselves fired.) Another approach might be to fold unemployment together with health, college, homeownership and retirement as expenses that people can save for in a tax-favored account.

Ira Stoll is the editor and founder of FutureOfCapitalism.com and the author of Samuel Adams: A Life. His weekly column appears at Reason.com.

Walter Olson

If I could press a button and instantly vaporize one sector of employment law, I think I'd pick age discrimination.

Its beneficiaries are among those needing least assistance. The main cash-and-carry effect of age-bias law is to confer legal leverage on older male holders of desirable jobs, such as managers, pilots, and college professors, who by threatening to raise the issue can extract ampler severance packets than might otherwise be offered them. Much legal talent is wasted in the resulting exit negotiations, which seldom seem to rouse the ire of critics of gaudy executive pay, golden parachutes and so forth.

It blatantly backfires on those it tries to help. Once cut loose from the old job, those same buyout recipients find it harder to land the next high-level job because of the perception that older hires are more likely to need buyouts not far down the road.

It generates pointless avoidance mechanisms. Ask your HR director about the costly stage in layoff strategy known as "age-balancing the RIF" or about the many small-talk questions you're not supposed to ask at job interviews for fear of seeming interested in the subject ("I notice you're a veteran. Which war?") or about the brain-cracking legal headaches that arise from the premise that (at least in some situations) the design of pension plans is supposed to take no notice of age.

Its intellectual basis is lighter than helium. Race, sex, sexual orientation and disability each form the basis of a major identity politics movement. But really: "ageism?" It's one thing to abridge liberty to expiate the national guilt of antebellum slavery, but can anyone keep a straight face in proclaiming persons of late middle age a historically oppressed class?

Please, I want to see this law repealed before I'm too old to enjoy it.

Walter Olson is a contributing editor to Reason, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and proprietor of Overlawyered.com.

Peter Schiff

To make the greatest impact on persistent unemployment, the government should pursue policies that allow the free market to set wages, benefits, and all issues related to employment. Just as employees are allowed to leave jobs for whatever reason, employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on any criteria without fear of litigation. In other words, liability cost for hiring employees should be minimized. Employees become easier to hire once employers know that their downside risks are minimized. In addition, all labor laws protecting employees from employers, including minimum wage laws, should be repealed.

Employment is a voluntary relationship between two parties. Our laws should reflect and support that concept to the highest extent possible. Employees do not qualify for special privileges (inappropriately labeled worker's rights) simply because they accept a job, and employers do not lose their rights and become subjected to special obligations just because they hire. The playing field should be level.

Peter Schiff is the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital and the author of How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.

Alex Tabarrok

QE3: Fed should buy lots of long term T-bonds.

Alex Tabarrok is the Bartley J. Madden Professor of Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Fred L. Smith

Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline: 20,000 jobs created. The 1,700 mile Keystone XL Pipeline would link expanding Canadian crude production from tar sands with America's first-class refining hub in the Midwest and along the Gulf. The $7 billion project would roughly double U.S. imports of tar sands oil from western Canada.

Because the Keystone XL pipeline crosses an international border, the primary permitting agency is the State Department. However, oil production from tar sands is more carbon-intensive than traditional production, so environmentalist groups are staunchly opposed to it. As a result, the project has been in a permitting limbo for three years. By approving the project in short order, President Barack Obama would directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2013, according to an independent analysis by the Perryman Group.

Fred L. Smith Jr. is the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Fighting Youth Discrimination - Q&A w/ NYRA President Jeffrey Nadel

Robert Higgs, a retired American economist and economic historian who now lives in Mexico, is the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government.

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey's latest book is Beyond Positivism, Behaviorism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics (The University of Chicago Press).

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University and blogger for EconLog. He is co-author, with Zach Weinersmith, of Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration (First Second). He is also author of The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money (Princeton University Press).

Jeffrey Miron is the Director of Economic Studies at the Cato Institute and Director of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies in Economics at Harvard University.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK, Conservative.

Contributing Editor Walter Olson is senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of several books, which include: The Excuse Factory (1998) and The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law (2004).

Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor at Antiwar.com and previously worked as an associate editor at Reason.

Hide Comments (298)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Max 14 years ago

Asking exclusively economists and politicos on the right seems like a good idea, does it?
1. Roymondito 14 years ago
  
  I mean, it's already pretty obvious what those on the left would do
  1. Restoras 14 years ago
    
    Not too mention they already did and can't think of anything else except to do more.
2. 14 years ago
  
  OK. Asking Paul Krugman or Rachel Madcow makes more sense how?
  1. Max 14 years ago
    
    A search for the truth--as opposed to a search for whatever confirms what you already believe--would entail asking economists across the spectrum, asshole.
    1. Red Rocks Rockin 14 years ago
      
      A search for the truth--as opposed to a search for whatever confirms what you already believe
      
      The truth is we're broke.
    2. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
      
      Like you'd read/listen to anything but left-wing bullshit, Max.
    3. Trident 14 years ago
      
      When it comes to economics, there is no truth on the left.
      Only sentimental and/or envious horseshit.
      
      Stop economic policies based on appeals to pity, and maybe we can take your level of 'logic' seriously.
      1. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
        
        It's still fun to poke the badgers.
    4. hmm 14 years ago
      
      Maddow is a political scientist, not an economist. Asking her about economics is like asking my mailman about mechanical engineering because they both start with "m."
    5. RockLibertyWarrior 14 years ago
      
      @Max Name calling: The last refuge of a scoundrel who has no valid argument or point.
    6. Maxxx 14 years ago
      
      A search for the truth--as opposed to a search for whatever confirms what you already believe--would entail asking economists across the spectrum
      
      Maybe Obama should have thought of that.
  2. Pharmakeus Ubik 14 years ago
    
    We already tried the right's prescription of deregulation and tax cuts. What was the net job growth during Bush II's terms?
    
    What Krugman recommends hasn't been tried by either side since FDR, and it worked then.
    1. Macfletch 14 years ago
      
      What's that? Jump into a world war? Cuz his FDR's economic policies didn't pan out...Japan tried it in the 90s. How'd that turn out?
    2. RockLibertyWarrior 14 years ago
      
      Spent more than LBJ on his Great Society, added thousands of more regulations to the books, raised taxes dozens of times, launched a two front war,etc. Yeah Pharmekus really free market. Oh by the way the economy tanked even worse after the "New Deal" in fact FDR threw up his hands at a cabinet meeting and said "Really I don't know what the hell to do now". That is a exact quote, maybe you should, I don't know read a little more history outside your right/left blinders.
3. Some Internet Guy 14 years ago
  
  It's Allan Meltzer, not Melzer
  1. Lucy Steigerwald 14 years ago
    
    Fixed, thank you.
4. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Arf! Arf! Arf!
  
  Shhhsssh! Shut it, Max! Go git yourself out, we have company!
5. anon 14 years ago
  
  Bullshit. Bruce Bartlett is a keynesian hack and you know it. There were a couple of others in there with obvious interventionist stances.
  1. RockLibertyWarrior 14 years ago
    
    Amen Bartlett's prescription got the biggest laugh out of me. The others I got a couple giggles and head nods to. I was thinking, "Really Reason? You went out of the way to find libertarians to answer this question?" Bruce's prescription sounded alot like what we're doing already and it hasn't helped one bit.
6. King Ludd 14 years ago
  
  What can Obama do to create jobs? How about instill personal responsibility on those lazy ass job creators and job seekers? Everyone wants a damn government handout especially rich people who I have about as much sympathy for as King George III. Come on this country was built under the principles of undue influence by the moneyed class on public policy now here we have a forum full of sheep licking the rich mans boot sole. Yes massa we lower taxes for you and you make a goody job.
jacob 14 years ago

You know, being first was not all that great
1. jacob 14 years ago
  
  did not even get that right. [gun to head]
Tony 14 years ago

Clearly the obvious answer is another stimulus, but this time done right. Bigger than the first and correctly targeted at true shovel ready projects. Yes it will goose the deficit and add yet more debt but Washington has to do something to stimulate demand and get people working again.
1. Realist 14 years ago
  
  OMG!
  1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
    
    Has to be sarcasism.
    1. Bill 14 years ago
      
      I'm not for QE3 or TARP7 or whatever comes next, but it is true that despite saying they would spend on infrastructure, almost none was spent on infrastructure as a story on reason the other day pointed out. Too bad, they can't go back and unwaste the money the spent from the first stimulus. What does it say that in one of our worst financial crises ever that they can't even spend the money in a semi-intelligent way on what they claimed they were going to spend it on. Why would the next round be any better?
    2. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
      
      Can't really tell here... it SOUNDS like Tony...
2. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  Clearly and obviously. So you're 200% sure this will work?
  1. wylie 14 years ago
    
    60% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
3. jacob 14 years ago
  
  That can't be the real Toni. It sounds like someone doing a Toni spoof.
  
  Really?
  1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
    
    Re: Jacob,
    
    That can't be the real Toni. It sounds like someone doing a Toni spoof.
    
    No, that's the real sockpuppet. He is just spewing the same economics illiterate drivel that the Krugnutz prescribes.
    1. ?? 14 years ago
      
      The real Tony always posts comments in bursts of 1000.
      
      Misfortunes never singly come.
4. Drax the Destroyer 14 years ago
  
  ...but Washington has to do something...
  
  Sometimes when you are a complete fucking failure, the best thing to do is sit on your hands, and not do shit.
  1. Sparky 14 years ago
    
    The problem is, complete fucking failures don't recognize themselves as such. Someone who is a failure would probably grasp the concept, but once you tread into complete fucking failure territory as far as you can tell you shit diamonds and everyone else is an idiot.
5. anon 14 years ago
  
  Washington can't stimulate demand, it can only re-distribute demand. Therefore, you're 100% wrong.
sarcasmic 14 years ago

Was that Bruce Bartlett guy for real? Talk about doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results.
1. Dagny T. 14 years ago
  
  Beat me to it. I was not surprised he was the dumbest (well, until I got to Mr. QE3, that is. Was he fucking serious?) and longest-winded when I saw his background.
2. ?? 14 years ago
  
  I love how he says we should do this and this, but it's impractical and won't work.
  
  Thanks, pal.
3. anon 14 years ago
  
  Yeah, it really read as if Bartlett had just finished reading The General Theory and started repeating it without any critical thought applied whatsoever.
P Brooks 14 years ago

there are things that we can do right now that will support job growth." Things like building roads, extending unemployment benefits, cutting payroll taxes, and that old standby, clean energy.

What? No pyramids?
1. Restoras 14 years ago
  
  Don't we already have this in the form of the Interstate Highway System?
  1. C. Al Currier 14 years ago
    
    The pyramids of Egypt were a smaller public-works-project than the Grand Coulee Dam (FDR) which was smaller than the Eisenhower-Interstate-Highway system.
    1. DK 14 years ago
      
      Does the Interstate system count as a public works project? I was under the impression that it got approved mainly because of its Defense implications (being able to get military vehicles across the nation quickly).
2. rts 14 years ago
  
  Remember me!
3. Drax the Destroyer 14 years ago
  
  Or plain old 'Merican-style "blow up brown people" war?
  1. Brett L 14 years ago
    
    I think our most economically beneifical wars came by fighting white and yellow people. We've been running your style war for the last 10 years and things are only getting worse.
    1. Resident Klansman 14 years ago
      
      Brown people is so lazy theys can't even stimulate our economies when we is warrin' 'em.
    2. ?? 14 years ago
      
      We got all that California gold beating the Mexicans. They're brownish.
      1. Brett L 14 years ago
        
        Well if we're actually going to drive them out and colonize, then any color will do.
        
        ?? 14 years ago
        
        They seem to keep driving us out, though.
        
        JMW 14 years ago
        
        Probably due to something in the water.
Bernie 14 years ago

"Things like building roads, extending unemployment benefits, cutting payroll taxes, and that old standby, clean energy."

#3 on this list probably would help the jobs situation, and possibly #1 as well. #2 however actively discourages people from accepting jobs, and #4 is probably more a waste of money than anything.
1. bart 14 years ago
  
  Building roads has negative impacts. I had a civil engineering firm when the first shovel ready projects were passed.
  
  The material suppliers (concrete, gravel, rebar, asphalt) kept their prices high in anticipation of the government projects.
  
  There were private projects that couldn't get financing because although labor prices had dropped way down - material costs still made the project too expensive and risky.
  
  The potential of a government project made other projects not happen.
  1. NAME REDACTED 14 years ago
    
    Yet again Bastiat was right.
    1. anon 14 years ago
      
      An atrocity that so few know of him.
Oso Politico 14 years ago

Through unfortunate oversight Reason forgot to ask Oso Politico his opinion, so here it is, quick and simple: Drop a nuclear device on Washington, D.C.
1. Restoras 14 years ago
  
  Just drop it?
  1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
    
    Light the fuse and run.
    1. iamtheeviltwin 14 years ago
      
      Light the Fuse and Get Away
      
      Fixed that for you
2. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  Ah, those things can be heavy. Bruce Bartlett approves of this make-work scheme.
  1. DA 14 years ago
    
    +1
3. Mercurus 14 years ago
  
  You're closer to the truth than most people will accept. Once erected, a welfare state system needs to be destroyed...physically and philosophically. This country is headed for more than bankruptcy, its headed for war.
4. Anonymous Coward 14 years ago
  
  I wouldn't waste perfectly good fissile material on the philosopher-kings of the Potomac.
  
  Go to Home Depot and buy a few yards of rope.
juris imprudent 14 years ago

I'd love to squeeze out a good dookie, hand it to the pollster and tell him "you're as likely to find a solution to jobs in that as you are in the words of any politician".
ScottyB 14 years ago

Yup, these unemployment benefits are sure bankrupting us.

But seriously, my proposal would be to fully decouple health insurance from employment.
1. Bill 14 years ago
  
  A nuke would do this, wouldn't it? (Note to HSA, just kidding)
sarcasmic 14 years ago

The first thing we need is more regulations. When businesses are prevented from operating until they comply with the whims of government regulators, jobs are created.

The next thing we need is more government. When the government removes money from the economy through taxation and the selling of bonds, and that money is not spent or invested into businesses, jobs are created.

Finally we need trade barriers. When consumers are prevented from purchasing cheap imports, they must purchase more expensive alternatives. When they buy fewer goods and services since their money doesn't go as far, jobs are created.

Government is the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
1. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  Great point.
  
  Problem: there's a hole in the ground over there
  Solution: Pay someone to fill it.
  Problem: That ground needs a hole in it.
  Solution: Pay someone to shovel it.
  
  Perpetual. Job. Machine.
  1. R C Dean 14 years ago
    
    What we have heah . . . is a failyuh . . . of communication.
  2. MJL 14 years ago
    
    Bee Tagger, I have a better idea. Instead of shovels, have them use spoons...
    1. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
      
      Excellent.
      
      Just imagine, these are the kinds of frivolous things we would quibble about in this 0% unemployment utopia.
    2. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      Only if we're going to bail out the shovel industry.
    3. Bill 14 years ago
      
      I was going to say their fingers, but when they broke their nails, they would not need fingernail clippers and this would cost jobs.
    4. cynical 14 years ago
      
      I have a better idea: force them to roll a boulder uphill, then roll it back downhill once they get close to the top.
  3. Tony 14 years ago
    
    Still better than the idiot wishlist presented here.
    1. Shorter Tony 14 years ago
      
      [::pouts::]
      1. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
        
        Obama presented something here? Missed it. Where is it?
  4. sarcasmic 14 years ago
    
    Russians had an expression - "we pretend to work; they pretend to pay us"
2. Bill 14 years ago
  
  Very nice, sarc.
Dagny T. 14 years ago

You know whose jib the cut of I like? Deirdre McCloskey, that's who. There is no such thing as "creating" jobs, government retards. Just stop doing things (ideally most things, but stopping even a few things would be a start).
1. Greer 14 years ago
  
  You know whose jib the cut of I like?
  
  you went to school didn't you?
  1. Public 14 years ago
    
    SkOAl!
  2. ?? 14 years ago
    
    Edmund Blackadder's College of Knowledge
2. Anomalous 14 years ago
  
  I don't like the idea of getting rid of the minimum wage for workers under 25. It means those under 25 have fewer rights than those over 25. Just eliminate the minimum wage entirely.
  1. ... 14 years ago
    
    Nope, it would mean giving those under 25 GREATER rights than those over 25.
    1. Justin 14 years ago
      
      And it would mean another regulation targeted to a specific class of workers, which would increase the costs to major corporations to assure that they were in compliance.
      
      Rather than do this the corps would just keep paying the minimum to avoid the risk of prosecution.
      
      Since so many union contracts are based on minimum wage, what would this proposal do to them?
    2. NAME REDACTED 14 years ago
      
      Yep!
  2. Waggoneer 14 years ago
    
    While 2.2% of all hourly workers earn minimum wage or less, just 1.4% of workers over the age of 25 are paid at or below the Federal minimum wage. More than half (51.2%) of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old. Another 21.2% are between 25 and 34.
3. Brett L 14 years ago
  
  Isn't that lassiez vous faire when translated into French? I swear I feel like they covered this in some class in school.
  1. ?? 14 years ago
    
    Probably French class.
    1. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      Nah. It was something-nomics. Some French king asked what he could do to stimulate business and got some advice. For some reason it seems analogous.
sarcasmic 14 years ago

How come nobody asked Brian Boitano?
1. steve 14 years ago
  
  or MATT DAMON!!!
2. ?? 14 years ago
  
  I bet he'd kick an ass or two.
P Brooks 14 years ago

Dear Bruce Bartlett-

I O U: one flaming bag of dog shit.

yrs, et c
Pro Libertate 14 years ago

1) Radical cuts to government and spending. Whole departments need to go.

2) Tax reform (that is, tax simplification) and reductions in overall taxation. This means, of course, even more spending cuts.

3) Massive deregulation. Much of our regulatory paradigm serves political and entrenched interests. Get rid of everything that isn't absolutely necessary.
1. R C Dean 14 years ago
  
  Pro L for God-King! Woot!
  1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    What's sad is that many know this is the right plan to save our economy. But they don't care about doing that. They just hope the host will magically get better so they can return to their quiet, parasitical ways, without being disturbed.
    1. Anonymous Coward 14 years ago
      
      You fail to address the key concern of politicians: How can I get more power?
      
      Giving up departments, committees and budgets never gave anyone more power.
      1. NAME REDACTED 14 years ago
        
        We need to create a prisoner's dilemma in politics that encourages them to give up their collective power by trying to get more power individually.
2. Old Soldier 14 years ago
  
  Yes - and stop extending unemployment - it has become a dole for semi-permanent unemployed.
  1. Legate Damar 14 years ago
    
    But keep extending it until online poker is legalized. I want a month, just one month, of being paid to sit home and play poker. Then we can stop extending it.
    1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
      
      You don't have internet access at work?
      1. ? 14 years ago
        
        Probably a logger or something.
3. Drax the Destroyer 14 years ago
  
  Although I agree with you completely, Pro Labia, such necessary actions will result in a bunch entitled once overpaid fat government employee-types to enter the no man's land of unemployment in the short term. Of course, eliminating the mininum wage and putting those unskilled workers back to it in manufacturing might eventually solve that, assuming they don't scream and fight the whole way along.
  
  This will be even more complicated when the sadists attached to the military-industrial complex are given the heave-ho. Domestic Terrorism Anybody?
  1. Mercurus 14 years ago
    
    Government employees do not produce anything. Right now the effect they're having on the economy is worse than what they would have if they were unemployed.
    1. Drax the Destroyer 14 years ago
      
      I agree with you man, but, we'd probably have some form of petulant Greek-style rioting in the least. We have to acknowledge that despite how much some fuckers have it coming to them, our wildest dreams frighten people who've become too comfortable, unimaginative, and plain fucking lazy.
      
      That said, let's shut down everything and let sweet Satan sort 'em out.
      1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
        
        Then we kill them and they have even less of an effect.
4. Realist 14 years ago
  
  Excellent ideas....good luck getting Americans to agree.
  1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    They want to be told what to do? Fine, I'm telling them.
5. Karl Hungus 14 years ago
  
  "1) Radical cuts to government and spending. Whole departments need to go."
  
  Sounds good to me. There'd be lots of crying about the sudden jump in unemployment due to the glut of newly idle (lol) federal workers, but if you couple it with with widescale deregulation, I have to believe that would create enough new demand that these people would be reabsorbed into the workforce. You know, doing legitimate work instead.
  1. Sparky 14 years ago
    
    You know, doing legitimate work instead.
    
    HAHA, good one.
  2. ?? 14 years ago
    
    Leave it to a nihilist...
    1. Karl Hungus 14 years ago
      
      Believe me, it's exhausting.
6. The Other Kevin 14 years ago
  
  If you also end the wars, and close all those foreign bases, you'd have enough to eliminate the personal income tax altogether. Imagine how the economy would grow if the 50% of us who pay taxes suddenly got a 25%+ raise.
  1. ?? 14 years ago
    
    If you end the wars you'll look like a pussy and everybody will vote for the wild-eyed Christian lady.
  2. NAME REDACTED 14 years ago
    
    Sorry, all the wars and foreign bases aren't enough. We could entirely eliminate the department of defense and it wouldn't be enough to balance the budget.
Oso Politico 14 years ago

All kidding aside, I think Stossel comes closest to a 'one concrete policy change'.
1. Greer 14 years ago
  
  But his is also the least realistic.
  
  "How do we solve this problem?"
  "Just.. [waves hands around], get rid of everything".
  
  I do agree with him, but it's not a credible answer right here and right now.
  1. DA 14 years ago
    
    How would General Sherman handle this situation?
    1. ?? 14 years ago
      
      Have a nervous breakdown and set everything on fire?
      1. Greer 14 years ago
        
        Now, I'm liking this idea.
        
        Old Soldier 14 years ago
        
        Make DC howl.
  2. Oso Politico 14 years ago
    
    Well, back to the nuke solution then...
2. Anomalous 14 years ago
  
  He should have included the Dept. of Education in his list of entities to kill.
Greg Hawkins 14 years ago

Irony of irony - Not one economic expert can understand that 2 million people have lost great jobs in places like the state of Michigan because the jobs have been exported and sacrificed on the mantle of free trade - open immigration and horrible trade agreements are wrecking America and anyone without a PHD in economics knows it.
1. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  Good trolling effort but you should have stopped before "anyone without a PHD in economics knows it."
  
  B-
2. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  That means 2 million people are freed to do other work while American consumers have access to cheaper goods.
  
  Unfortunately a mountain of regulation stands between those 2 million people and any opportunity for legal employment, which has created a huge demand for immigrants to work illegally.
  
  But I'm sure more government can solve the problem.
  Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that more government is the solution to problems created by government.
  1. Hate Potion Number Nine 14 years ago
    
    "freed to do other work"
    
    Like what? Please do us a favor and look up what "unemployed" means.
    1. Sy 14 years ago
      
      Please do us a favor and look at "job opportunities" on any form of media you like.
3. Restoras 14 years ago
  
  How is that Japanese auto companies can successfuly manufacture cars here but we can't?
  1. steve 14 years ago
    
    a) their closer to their buyers and b) 'mericuns prefer them to the domestic kind.
  2. Drax the Destroyer 14 years ago
    
    Because we "give" our auto workers the "dignity" of retirement at 50.
  3. Old Soldier 14 years ago
    
    Because (with the exception of Mitsubishi) they purposely avoid unions and forced-union states. They can use lean manufacturing principles and expect high performance out of their employees.
    
    I worked a few summers in a GM plant ? I was shocked it took them so long to go bankrupt.
    1. Union Work Rules 14 years ago
      
      Why won't they adopt us? We did so much for GM and Chrysler. Job certainty and all that.
      1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
        
        Some people don't want to be ruled, kneeler.
4. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Greg Hawkins,
  
  Irony of irony - Not one economic expert can understand that 2 million people have lost great jobs in places like the state of Michigan because the jobs have been exported and sacrificed on the mantle of free trade
  
  If free trade is to be blamed for the unemployment levels (instead of the artificially high cost of labor), then unfree trading paradises like Cuba or NK would have surpassed everybody in standard of living.
  
  I am sure also that NK has full employment... all labor camps do.
  
  anyone without a PHD in economics knows it.
  
  Ain't that the truth.
TheZeitgeist 14 years ago

The only way to get the gov out of your face is to de-mobilize it. Politically, only tenable way to do that is to buy their - 'foot-soldiers' as unions call their free labor - off. That is worth a 'stimulus' as it were, as one-time restructuring charge for the re-org.
A A Gruntpuddock 14 years ago

All rubbish - what is the point of reducing benefits if there are no jobs to apply for?

Cut the costs and red tape for busnisses to encourage startups and expansion.
Realist 14 years ago

Peter Schiff is correct.
Oso Politico 14 years ago

Another threadjack: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....more-44933
P Brooks 14 years ago

This is how government creates jobs:

"That ditch is Boss Kean's ditch. And I told him that dirt in it's your dirt. What's your dirt doin' in his ditch?"
1. R C Dean 14 years ago
  
  Great minds think alike, P.
  
  Some of them just think a little faster, is all. 🙂
  
  http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2458107
P Brooks 14 years ago

Radical cuts to government and spending. Whole departments need to go.

Oh, the humanity!

Where will those poor abandoned souls ever find fulfilling (yet not unduly arduous) work at a living wage?
1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
  
  With corporations. There, I said it.
  1. Brett L 14 years ago
    
    The could form partnerships if they like. The first time they get sued, they'll quickly come around to the bennies of limited liability.
    1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
      
      Limited liability is for sinners.
      1. Brett L 14 years ago
        
        Current liability law seems to take a "kill them all, God will recognize his own" tact. Propriety is no defense.
JoJo Zeke 14 years ago

Repeal of ObamaCare would probably do wonders to spur hiring, especially for permanent positions. Compensation for such jobs usually includes a benefits package with health care insurance, as well as a money wage or salary. Health care insurance often constitutes a major part of the employer's cost of keeping a permanent worker on the payroll, and anything that makes this cost difficult to forecast makes employers leery to take on new workers.

Only ONE respondent, out of the entire lot, was smart enough to list this one first... or at all, even?

I mean: seriously -- ?!?
1. Art Vandelay 14 years ago
  
  We. Are. So. SCREWED.
  1. Upgrayyed 14 years ago
    
    I think a tax holiday for the latex industry, importer/exporters and architects would solve things.
    1. ????Professor Van Nostrand 14 years ago
      
      Giddyup!
      1. Kramerica 14 years ago
        
        I can solve the oil crises!
P Brooks 14 years ago

With corporations. There, I said it.

You monster. Why not just sell them into slavery in a South African diamond mine?
1. H man 14 years ago
  
  No would pay for such lousy working material. *adjusts monocle*
2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
  
  I thought that was what I said.
P Brooks 14 years ago

Some of them just think a little faster, is all

yeah, yeah, yeah.
squarooticus 14 years ago

Eliminate all rent-seeking regulation and corporate welfare, and asinine workplace regulations that have nothing to do with safety. Make it so businesses *want* to come here and make use of the educated populace.
Tony 14 years ago

We need to create jobs, but in a manner that has government not doing things. Because life is a fucking game and dogmatic purity is more important than employment.
1. Tony 14 years ago
  
  Pay no attention to this spoofer.
  1. Tony 14 years ago
    
    Spoofing remains the entertainment bonanza it always was.
    1. T 14 years ago
      
      If only it could create jobs, too!
  2. Tony 14 years ago
    
    No, don't pay attention to this guy.
    1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
      
      Pay no attention to the sockpuppet, whether he's being spoofed or not. It is not worth anybody's time - trust me.
      1. Tony 14 years ago
        
        Yeah. Just ignore me.
        
        Old Mexican 14 years ago
        
        You ignored me, you sockpuppet. I don't see why I shouldn't pay you in kind.
      2. Realist 14 years ago
        
        I am glad you've changed your mind.
  3. Barney The Frank 14 years ago
    
    Pay no attention to the poofter.
  4. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
    
    Who can tell the difference, other than the real(ish) Tony?
  5. The Bearded Hobbit 14 years ago
    
    Tony|8.12.11 @ 1:03PM|#
    
    Pay no attention to this spoofer.
    
    I've learned to not pay attention to anything named "Tony".
    
    ... Hobbit
2. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  Keep on masturbating you masterbaiter.
ola 14 years ago

"Fred L. Smith

Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline: 20,000 jobs created"

Fred is just nibbling around the edges. Abundant, reliable and affordable energy is the lifeblood of every economy since the industrial revolution. The feds should lift ALL moratoria, repeal EPA mandates and regulations enacted in the last 20 years, and streamline permitting of energy source exploitation. Voila, instant adrenaline to the economy. Oil prices trend lower, energy speculation instantly creates jobs and royalties to government (I know that part sucks) and our trade defecit may reduce. It's not just drill baby drill, it's a little more encompassing than that. However, it's not too difficult to understand.
1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  To justify their employment regulators must regulate.
  Their job description is to put up impediments for starting business, and to make doing business as difficult as possible.
  If they don't do their job then they don't get paid.
  So they do their job.
  Regulation that is on the books represents much work on the part of regulators. Every regulation was put into place for a reason. You can't just to and start repealing it.
  
  What do you think this is?
  A free country or something?
  Ha!
2. Justin 14 years ago
  
  But then the Feds will have to assist in keeping the oil prices artificially high (maybe by joining OPEC), because if they don't prices will fall and all those domestic jobs will be lost, which is what happened to Texas during the 80's.
  1. ola 14 years ago
    
    Yeah, it will really be a pain to deal with the consequences of a free market for a change instead of the consequences of massive market manipulation by the fricking federal government.
moocher_central 14 years ago

EVERY ANSWER: "do the exact same things I was saying we should do fifteen years ago when the economy was roaring and unemployment was below 5%, only do it now because it will magically create millions of new jobs overnight because I so proclaim it to be true."

Oh, yeah - and, somehow, this can work with oil already above $85 per barrel, as if triple-digit oil won't choke off any recovery that tax cuts and dereg is supposed to magically deliver.
1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Moocher_central,
  
  EVERY ANSWER: "do the exact same things I was saying we should do fifteen years ago when the economy was roaring and unemployment was below 5%, only do it now because it will magically create millions of new jobs overnight because I so proclaim it to be true."
  
  WHAT the FUCK are you talking about?
  1. ?? 14 years ago
    
    Reptilian death ray done killed another truth seeker.
Old Mexican 14 years ago

Peter Schiff:

To make the greatest impact on persistent unemployment, the government should pursue policies that allow the free market to set wages, benefits, and all issues related to employment. Just as employees are allowed to leave jobs for whatever reason, employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on any criteria without fear of litigation. [...][A]ll labor laws protecting employees from employers, including minimum wage laws, should be repealed.

In other words: LOWER the cost of labor and the cost of HIRING.

Employees do not qualify for special privileges (inappropriately labeled worker's rights) simply because they accept a job, and employers do not lose their rights and become subjected to special obligations just because they hire. The playing field should be level.

Totally correct. Employment of labor is actually a purchase of a good, a contractual agreement. For some reason and against the Constitutional mandate indicating that the sanctity of contracts shall be protected, labor is taken as something totally different than any other good in the market, subject to very extreme intervention by the government.

The greatest problem with interfering in this market on behalf of one party is the lowering of quality standards of the good, as labor becomes pretty much a monopolized market in the strictest economic sense - not by any actions taken by the participants but because of government mandates. And as the case with any artificial monopoly, the result of this manipulation is a labor force that becomes less willing to offer more value for the cost, thus the reason why unemployment is VERY high among the undereducated and the young. Employers will scrunge for the best of the best in order to obtain the best possible value as government intervention rises the cost of hiring and labor itself, instead of letting Comparative Advantage take over the market.
1. Sven 14 years ago
  
  Given the United States' historical background, it is understandable that you see people as a commodity. Fortunately, times have changed.
  1. Interstate Commerce Clause 14 years ago
    
    No, he sees labor as a commodity. Which it is.
  2. Old Mexican 14 years ago
    
    Re: Sven,
    
    Given the United States' historical background, it is understandable that you see people as a commodity.
    
    It looks like the other way around, Sven: YOU see people as a commodity which is why you give people's labor some sort of mystical and moral superiority. I see LABOR as a commodity, not people.
  3. Anonymous Coward 14 years ago
    
    it is understandable that you see people as a commodity.
    
    Someone not visited the Human RESOURCES department lately?
    
    Not Personnel. Resources. Thank you, fuck you, bye.
    1. Sven 14 years ago
      
      I know. Thanks for confirming my point. Our HR department has two functions: 1. to make sure everything goes smooth when people get fired. 2. to avoid any lawsuits (sexual harassment etc). That old slave owner mentality (as exhibited by "Anonymous Coward") that still prevails here in the States makes sense culturally, but it is a little outdated. At some point you will have to decide if you want to become a civilized nation, or if you want to be in that other club, with countries like China, Russia, and India.
      1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
        
        Re: Sven,
        
        Our HR department has two functions: 1. to make sure everything goes smooth when people get fired. 2. to avoid any lawsuits (sexual harassment etc).
        
        *slaps forehead*
        
        Yeah, money well spent.
        
        That old slave owner mentality[...]
        
        Only European idiots believe that employed people are (or were anytime) slaves.
        
        You add nothing new to any argument, Sven, you simply spew old and tired platitudes that go back to the 19th Century. Go and play outside and leave the adult conversation to us adults.
  4. sevo 14 years ago
    
    "Given the United States' historical background, it is understandable that you see people as a commodity. Fortunately, times have changed."
    
    So you've dropped all pretense at being 'sympathetic' to the libertarian view, let alone your bullshit claims about having anything to do with business.
    And now, you're just one more brain-dead lefty without a clue that your fantasies have been tossed in the trashbin.
    Pathetic.
John Thacker 14 years ago

Bruce Bartlett also praised Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls because even though it was economically stupid, it was radical and decisive and Presidential, dammit.
1. KDN 14 years ago
  
  The only problem is Nixon didn't go far enough: if the Feds would have given every citizen enough cash so they'd be worth five million dollars (eight for married households) in addition to the wage and price controls then everyone would have been wealthy for generations and there would be no inflation or poverty. Jobs would rain down like...rain. Puppies and ice cream for everyone.
  1. Realist 14 years ago
    
    You forgot Unicorns and Rainbows.
sevo 14 years ago

"If free trade is to be blamed for the unemployment levels (instead of the artificially high cost of labor), then unfree trading paradises like Cuba or NK would have surpassed everybody in standard of living."

This is a source of continuing amusement.
Lefty:
"Cuba is a shithole because of the US embargo!"
Same lefty, next day:
"Free trade makes people poor!"
1. Progressive 14 years ago
  
  Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Sven 14 years ago

For a Euroepan liberal living in the States, its is very worrying to see how "libertarians" are retreating into inner exile and have nothing more to offer than rhetoric anymore. I work in Business Planning for one of the largest corporations in this country and I can assure you that we don't give a fuck about this or that regulation when we plan how many people to hire for next year. The only thing that drives hiring is anticipated demand for our products. If consumer spending keeps stagnating for a few more years we will all be fucked. People need reassurance, we need to alleviate fear, and we need to show the people that America is growing. If you believe that cutting taxes, regulation and transfer payments will achieve that, then we are truly doomed. Short term we need to jump start this economy. Long term we need to foster industries that truly create value and are internationally competitive. Not bullshit scams like the financial services industry.
1. sevo 14 years ago
  
  "I work in Business Planning for one of the largest corporations in this country and I can assure you that we don't give a fuck about this or that regulation when we plan how many people to hire for next year. The only thing that drives hiring is anticipated demand for our products."
  
  And if you don't see the internal contradiction in that statement, you probably have no business 'planning' anything.
  1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
    
    I'm in the same kind of department - we care a whole lot about our cost structure. Regulations drive the cost of labor and many other activities. It is rarely a line item - it is embedded in everything.
    1. ?? 14 years ago
      
      "one of the largest corporations in this country" could describe General Motors.
    2. The Bearded Hobbit 14 years ago
      
      Regulations drive the cost of labor
      
      Lockout/tagout is a very simple, very fundamental aspect of safety.
      
      The place that I work for has made it so difficult to do LOTO that it takes two hours to get the required signatures. Not only is the two hour delay a waste of time but many people are bypassing the system and doing work less safely.
      
      But paperwork is going to make us safer.
      
      ... Hobbit
      1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
        
        Re: The Bearded Hobbit,
        
        The place that I work for has made it so difficult to do LOTO that it takes two hours to get the required signatures.
        
        Same experience here. Most safety issues have to do with people goofing off or thinking about last night's game than about following arbitrary rules made in DC. We in the cement business train people every year and every week about situational awareness MUCH MORE than about the required height of handrails according to OSHA (or in our case, MSHA.)
  2. Tony 14 years ago
    
    Hating democrats trumps supply and demand!
2. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  How exactly does removing money from the economy through taxation and selling bonds, skimming some off the top to pay government employees, and then putting that reduced amount back into the economy based upon political considerations rather than ability to create value "jump start" the economy?
  
  I'm just curious, because it defies common sense.
3. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Sven,
  
  The only thing that drives hiring is anticipated demand for our products.
  
  Sven, before you continue saying more stupid things, just think how much DEMAND and SALES would rise if your labor costs were LOWER, enabling you to offer better DEALS to your customers.
  
  The issue is not simply putting people to work - Stalin did that very easily. The issue has to do with LABOR COSTS and GROWTH.
  
  If consumer spending keeps stagnating for a few more years we will all be fucked.
  
  Yeah, those stingy consumers. Imagine, not wanting to spend their money in things just to subsidize your employment.
  
  If you believe that cutting taxes, regulation and transfer payments will achieve that, then we are truly doomed.
  
  No, YOU are doomed because Europeans are irremediably stupid. Lowering taxes, lowering spending and lowering regulation HAS WORKED before.
  1. Sven 14 years ago
    
    Old Mexican, before you continue saying more stupid things, how about you leave your ivory tower, put those books down, and start working in the real world. We don't set prices based on a fixed margin on top of cost, we set prices based on what we know the consumer is willing to pay. If our labor cost goes down we will say thank you and funnel that improved margin to our owners. Or use It to offset the decline in demand like in the last three years. We have been able to cut labor cost massively in the last three years, irrespective of any fucking regulation, because people are killing each other for jobs out there. So we were able to skim them off a bit more. This is the kind of supply and demand that determines labor cost, not your dreaded regulation.
    
    People are not buying my company's goods to subsidize my employment, they are buying them because we are the best at what we are doing worldwide, and because we create real things of real value to people. BTW, it's one of the most American companies you can think of.
    1. Realist 14 years ago
      
      Is Sven short for Svengoolie???
    2. Old Mexican 14 years ago
      
      Re: Sven,
      
      how about you leave your ivory tower, put those books down, and start working in the real world.
      
      Do you really want to go there, Mr. "Business Planning"?
      
      We don't set prices based on a fixed margin on top of cost,
      
      Who said anything about that? Besides, labor is variable cost, it is part of PRODUCTION COSTS. You must be thinking of staff - that only tells me you're pure bullshit.
      1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
        
        Re: Sven,
        
        and start working in the real world.
        
        Just so you know, Mr. genius: I've worked in the private sector all my life, here in the US and in Mexico. I've seen it all.
        
        I used to think like you - you know, employers were stingy, they had more bargaining power, yadda yadda. Then a funny thing happened: I learned economics. That is, I actually sat down, read a few books, took a few classes, saw lots of blogs and forums, and LEARNED how the REAL WORLD works. You still operate in a 1848 mindset - congratulations.
4. NotSure 14 years ago
  
  Sven if you work for a company that cannot sell its products perhaps it should stop selling the junk and stop hoping government subsidies will somehow change peoples preferences.
  
  The reason the economy got to where it is, is because too many market distortions has rewarded too many loser companies, including yours. Be brave, name your corporation, and I will guarantee you that it is struggling because it does not want to face up to market realities.
  1. Sven 14 years ago
    
    We are not struggling, don't get subsidies, and we don't have fucking lobbyists in Washington destroying this country. We are simply good at what we are doing, and I can assure you that a little bit of protection for our workers from being treated like cattle will not do anything to the overall success of my company. We will still make billions in profit. But you guys should think about the kind of country you want to live in. Do you want it to be more like Brazil or more like Germany? I've lived in both, and I can assure you you would prefer the German way.
    1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
      
      a little bit of protection for our workers from being treated like cattle
      
      You know what. I wouldn't mind some of that "protection" to go away. My employer charges by the hour. They charge the same rate whether I'm working forty hours or forty five. If they had to pay me time and a half then they'd be paying more than they charge. But if they pay me for working more than forty hours, by law they must pay me time and a half. The solution is to pay me nothing for hours over forty. I would work more if they were allowed to pay me straight time. I'd work weekends.
      But myself and my employer are not allowed to make that arrangement - to protect me from being treated like cattle.
      Thanks Uncle Sam. Thanks a lot.
    2. NotSure 14 years ago
      
      I do not follow your logic, your company is great and all that, but it still needs the government to stop it from treating its staff like cattle. So why do you want to work for a company treating its staff like cattle ???
      
      Contrary to popular opinion Germany did not get rich because it decided to embrace social democracy, it was the second place to have an industrial, before it even was a single nation. Brazil still had slavery up to the 1890's. But despite that Brazil is one of the big growth countries in the world.For Germany, check whats happening to the imploding EU. Brazil is the future, Germany is the past. I do not say this lightly since I am German.
      
      Like I said, name your company what is the taboo here ?
      1. Sven 14 years ago
        
        My company is great at making money, and it acts no different from any other company in this country with respect to its employees, who have no bargaining power anymore at all, unless they are in of the last remaining unionized industries. Why would any head of a business unit whose bonus depends on the operating margin he delivers not treat his employees like cattle, if it means he can send his kid to Harvard instead of Cal State?
        And BTW, Germany is doing very well. They actually still produce things of value to other people.
        
        NotSure 14 years ago
        
        Like others have already suspected, I doubt you actually work for any big corporate. If you did, you would actually be defending your company by saying that its staff are treated well. Many companies treat their staff well, not because the government tell them to, but because they are good people.
        
        And no, Germany is not doing very well, the export economy like Chinas is facing real problems, the economy is becoming ever more distorted by the simple fact that it is running out of real customers. Not to mention, the endless bailouts for the ever growing list of European debt disasters.
        
        sevo 14 years ago
        
        "Like others have already suspected, I doubt you actually work for any big corporate."
        
        The first clue is that regulations had no effect on customer demand.
        The next was this bit of propaganda:
        "...employees, who have no bargaining power anymore at all, unless they are in of the last remaining unionized industries."
        Sniff, sniff? Stinks of bullshit.
        
        Sven 14 years ago
        
        Oh, I cannot be real unless I am a brainwashed lemming like you? I am just telling things the way they are, I am doing my job so that I don't get fired, and if that means fucking up people's lives because we need to keep our margin up, so be it. I am just trying to survive in this jungle called the US, like everybody else. I don't make the laws here, I cannot even vote. If you people want this country to be dog eat dog, that's fine, I will take off and go somewhere else when I'm done here and leave you in your shithole.
        
        sevo 14 years ago
        
        Sven|8.12.11 @ 4:06PM|#
        "...I am just trying to survive in this jungle called the US, like everybody else...."
        
        That's GREAT!
        Should we lead with the violins, or perhaps cue them part way through the line?
        
        Sven 14 years ago
        
        Ahh, you are still drinking the Kool Aid, I remembered those days, and how nice it was to be delusional.
        My company treats its employees like any other American company would. For example, when things went south in 2008, I know of one of our divisions that fired hundreds of people, some of whom had been lured away from other companies and good jobs just weeks before, because the Operating Margin of that division was expected to drop from 72% to 68%. Peoples' livelihoods were destroyed so that we could funnel a few cents per share more to the owners, and so that bonuses of the top executives would not come down. Don't get me wrong that's all legal, legit, and economically sound. But it's still fucked up. Capitalism gives you the right to act like an asshole. But if we all do, we are fucked. That's the irony.
        
        sevo 14 years ago
        
        "I know of one of our divisions that fired hundreds of people, some of whom had been lured away from other companies and good jobs just weeks before, because the Operating Margin of that division was expected to drop from 72% to 68%. Peoples' livelihoods were destroyed so that we could funnel a few cents per share more to the owners, and so that bonuses of the top executives would not come down. Don't get me wrong that's all legal, legit, and economically sound."
        
        Your script has been rejected; over-done, tired, transparently bullshit.
        Try the Mime Troop or whatever Gore is calling his TV empire these days.
        
        Sven 14 years ago
        
        U kiddin? Do you have any fucking clue what is going on in this country? People are a resource, like coal, why wouldn't we fire them if our growth expectations have to be "adjusted" because some bankers came up with products they themselves could not comprehend anymore? Any worker in the US who is not unionized works "at will". You don't need them anymore, you fire them, that's it. Senior Execs' bonus is based on whether they hit their target. You think they will forego that bonus so that some asshole doesn't have to stand in line for food stamps? Where do you live?
        
        sevo 14 years ago
        
        Sven|8.12.11 @ 3:53PM|#
        ..."Capitalism gives you the right to act like an asshole."...
        
        Yeah, and socialism gives shitheads like you the right to act like assholes with guns.
        I'll take the former any day.
        
        ?? 14 years ago
        
        "They actually still produce things of value to other people."
        
        Harmonicas for example. You need one in every key.
        
        Old Mexican 14 years ago
        
        Re: Sven,
        
        My company is great at making money,
        
        They should, because they can afford you. And no, it is not a compliment.
        
        and it acts no different from any other company in this country with respect to its employees, who have no bargaining power anymore at all,
        
        OMG!!! Scandinavian workers are tied to their seats and made to work! They can't switch jobs!!!! They have no bargaining power!!!
        
        Bullshit. Sven, not only are you an economics illiterate fool (workers ALWAYS have bargaining power, as they can say "NO" to an offer), you're just pure bullshit.
        
        East Bay Jay 14 years ago
        
        No bargaining power? Take a gander in your company's breakroom and look at the various employment rights placards. If the print weren't so small I'd be all over my company.
5. Brett L 14 years ago
  
  Right. Your plan to hire 500 workers at $40k/year predicted cost becomes a plan to hire 350 workers at $50k/year predicted cost and 10 consultants $200k/year at to tell you how to improve your productivity by 30%. One you do during times when demand is actually incrasing, one you do when you don't have a fucking clue what your labor cost or demand will be. I've played this game before, too.
6. califronian 14 years ago
  
  "Not bullshit scams like the financial services industry."
  
  Sorry but you give yourself away here.
7. ola 14 years ago
  
  Do you mean the business planners in your cubicle in the corner of the basement of some throw away subsidiary of "one of the largest corporations in the country"? I guess from your perspective, you would support a business plan that includes hiring and reducing the purchase price of your product below cost to drive up demand, because "The only thing that drives hiring is anticipated demand for our products." Good god.
8. Realist 14 years ago
  
  I know you don't owe me anything, but please name the company you work for so I can fucking make sure I never by their stock.
  1. Realist 14 years ago
    
    ....Should read buy.
9. Red Rocks Rockin 14 years ago
  
  I work in Business Planning for one of the largest corporations in this country and I can assure you that we don't give a fuck about this or that regulation when we plan how many people to hire for next year.
  
  The problem, Sven, is that small businesses don't have the same resources to fuck off the regulators, and small businesses are the primary driver of jobs.
  
  Increasing regulations and government oversight isn't going to fix that problem.
  1. hmm 14 years ago
    
    Great example of regulator capture. Of course you don't care. Your corporation saw to it that such regulations only impacted the competition.
Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago

Shred the United States Tax Code. Slash and burn the entirety of the regulatory environment we've grown and salt the earth that grew it. Sunset provision on all legislation, term limits on all offices. And bring back Seinfeld.
hmm 14 years ago

What Would You Do to Improve Job Growth?

Nuke DC from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
  
  I've heard worse plans. And cleaning up the mess would mean more jobs, too!
  1. Old Soldier 14 years ago
    
    Just leave it there as a warning to future polticians.
    1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
      
      District of Plutonia.
Some Guy 14 years ago

So: eliminate the minimum wage for people younger than 25.

So banning people over 24 from holding certain jobs is a good mechanism for job creation?
1. NotSure 14 years ago
  
  Actually eliminate all minimum wage for all ages, it would be good for job creation.
  1. Some Guy 14 years ago
    
    So yeah, if he had said that as opposed to the retarded thing he actually said, I'd be fine with it.
Cliton 14 years ago

"Jobs" could mean lots of things other than work-for-pay.
1. Monica 14 years ago
  
  Ya, like work for wad!
erikjay 14 years ago

Stossel mentioned HUD. HUD? That's a Paul Newman movie, right?
Peter Stanislaw 14 years ago

I am having a great time learning more about libertarianism/capitalist-anarchism (if you're honest, they are one and the same). I cannot see just layering libertarian policies over the particular brand of corporate capitalism we suffer under now, though. True, free-market capitalism would need to be effected first. Suddenly repealing labor laws and allowing employers to treat employees in whatever fashion they desire doesn't seem a good starting point to me. The employee's actual labor constitutes property rights as well, according to Rothbard.
1. sevo 14 years ago
  
  "Suddenly repealing labor laws and allowing employers to treat employees in whatever fashion they desire doesn't seem a good starting point to me."
  
  Well, you're right. Those employers would have to be disarmed first so they don't ride through the offices and behead all those workers.
2. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Peter Stanislaw,
  
  True, free-market capitalism would need to be effected first. Suddenly repealing labor laws and allowing employers to treat employees in whatever fashion they desire [sic] doesn't seem a good starting point to me.
  
  You're not being serious. Do you really want to argue that all employee-employer relationships are based on BONDAGE?
  
  The employee's actual labor constitutes property rights as well, according to Rothbard.
  
  Glad to know you accept that truism. Now, how do you reconcile this with the bullshit you just spewed not a paragraph ago?
3. The Bearded Hobbit 14 years ago
  
  if you're honest, they are one and the same
  
  "Q: What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?"
  
  A: About two years, if they're paying attention."
  
  -- Jacob Sandoval, 2010
  
  ... Hobbit
4. Some Guy 14 years ago
  
  if you're honest, they are one and the same
  
  Only in the same way that Fred Phelps is the one true flavor of Christianity.
Jersey Patriot 14 years ago

I can't believe no one has suggested destroying the digger machines and issuing spoons to the unemployed.

But seriously!

It's time for debt defaults. Credit cards, underwater mortgages, government bonds...there's just too much debt in the system. Default, bankruptcy, cram down, whatever: jsut get it out of there and start fresh. We're past due for a jubilee.
Justin 14 years ago

Donald Boudreaux was advocating for some principals of the FAIR TAX.

Implementing the FAIR TAX would cause the US to become a corporate tax haven, which would cause such a need for employees that it would also solve any illegal immigration problem.
cynical 14 years ago

What do you think the fed is doing?
Colonel_Angus 14 years ago

Yo, fuck Bruce Bartlet, whoever the fuck that is.

Suck my dick.
@saintjohnnie:twitter 14 years ago

Job creation 101:
1)stable taxes- roller coaster tax rates= cautious hiring
2)stable monetary policy- same reason
3)active revival and enforcement of the nondelegation doctrine- regulations smother private industry at least lets hold the rulemakers politically accountable. Technochratic justifications for agency regulations are BS. No reason rules can't be treated as proposals requiring bicameral passage and presentment. Its what we have legislative committee staff for.
4)Repeal the NLRA- private voluntary transactions between employers and employees should be free. Govt thumb on the scale has allowed 1 side of the bargain an unfair advantage that has all but killed manufacturing in the US. Unions should defend workers rights w/o the heavy hand of govt turning the process into an extortion racket.
5)Strict scrutiny for professional licensure- recognize that earning a living is a fundamental right and the burden should be upon the government to show that a license requirement serves a compelling interest that can't be accomplished by a less intrusive means
TJRock 14 years ago

Legalize marijuana, that would create an explosion of jobs and revenue. It's really that simple.
Steve Wierhake 14 years ago

As much as I like suggestions such as eliminating the minimum wage and elimating the departments of commerce, agriculture, etc., Bruce Bartlett's ideas are the most compelling. He just might even have a basic understanding of how the US monetary systems actually works. The USA cannot run out of money, we create currency. Greece uses currency. As the world's largest economy that has a monopoly on its own currency --- that it can create --- we cannot run out of money. The risk is that we create too much currrency and cause hyperinflation. Given the extreme weakness in the economy, hyperinflation is unlikely. We are still in a recession -- a balance sheet recession, wherein households are still trying to reduce debt. The government needs to spend money until consumers start spending more money. Finally, a one year payroll tax holiday for households earning up to $100,000 would do more to create jobs than any business incentives proposed. Businesses are not hiring because they're not seeing enough demand for their products and services.
ola 14 years ago

Since SS only collects up to about $100,000 individually, you are proposing to print massive amounts of dollars to send back to SS recipients? WTF? With ideas like this, it's time to get exit visas prepared. How about suggesting something that doesn't require massive government spending? With your one year solution, the economy may increase for about 6 to 8 months, then starting in about 9 months it would crash just in time for the primaries, as people look forward to a massive tax increase at end of month 12. It's just like this stupid 12 month payroll tax holiday that was approved last december, how has that worked out? Boy, people are really stupid.
Duck is a What? 14 years ago

I see you asked a group of folks who are part of the problem.
1. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
  
  I don't see any Democrats in that "group of folks".
Patrick 14 years ago

Create jobs and build a strong economy, simple.
Place a 100% import tax on goods made outside the USA. Make strong labor unions that urge their membership to buy American. None of these so-called experts touched on the fact that we need to bring our jobs home. Not bring the sweat shops with them though, that's what about half of these crack pots want, a bunch of jobs paying lower than minimum wage. None of these flunkies offered one idea how to increase demand, they're all full of smoke and mirror ideas to make the rich even more money.
1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Patrick,
  
  Place a 100% import tax on goods made outside the USA.
  
  That will destroy jobs, as the required capital goods for many a modern industry come from abroad (Japan and Europe).
  
  Make strong labor unions that urge their membership to buy American.
  
  The highest Union membership ever was during the Great Depression, exactly the same time the unemployment rate was the highest that ever was. The two are closely related, by the way: Unionism and unemployment.
  
  None of these so-called experts touched on the fact that we need to bring our jobs home.
  
  They're not "our" jobs, asshole, jobs belong to the employers.
  1. Tony 14 years ago
    
    They're not "our" jobs, asshole, jobs belong to the employers.
    
    It's so interesting how you combine radial individual liberty with an almost worshipful attitude toward management.
    
    Labor is a service people provide employers. But in the name of "creating jobs" (code for making management more money around here) you want to make labor more of a serf-like situation. You want to make it harder for them to negotiate! Why? Because you're for freedom, just not the freedom of most people.
Jim 14 years ago

I am surprised no one mentioned licensing.

Think of it. You're poor and unemployed. You can not grow and sell your own vegetables. You can not start a taxi service. You can not offer meals out of your own apartment. You can not even cut your neighbors' hair for fear they get a bad haircut.

Licensing not only precludes entrepreneurial activity for lack of 'schooling' and registration fees. It props up an economic strata of legal and tax and accounting fees that are really nothing but an extra tax on the economy.

Getting rid of zoning laws would help as well. Some of our housing glut could be converted to neighborhood pubs, bakeries, offices, and shops that people could walk to.
1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Re: Jim,
  
  I am surprised no one mentioned licensing.
  
  Good point. But most of the people interviewed had mentioned the adverse effect of licensing laws many times before, for instance: John Stossel.
Brian Mander 14 years ago

To increase job growth I would stop sending all our jobs overseas. It's one thing to buy less expensive products but it's another to take away someone's job in your own counrty. Business owners do have an obligation to thier own countries
1. Daniel 14 years ago
  
  Then write to your Congressman, or the President, and ask them to stop adding taxes and regulations onto businesses that make it much more expensive to provide jobs here than to ship them overseas.
  
  Read some of the recent articles - most of the jobs that have been transferred have been a result of new regulations, health care cost increases, and (I have to sound anti-union, but facts are facts) highly inflated labor costs due to union dues and demands.
  
  I don't make these facts up - do your own research
JeremyR 14 years ago

Stossel had the right answer. It's regulations and red tape holding back private job creation.

I can't believe these people saying inflation is the answer. That's what Obama has been doing! That doesn't improve the economy, it makes it worse, because it's the people without money who are mostly affected. The rich just shrug and keep doing what they did.
1. Refugee from E Euro communism 14 years ago
  
  Please see my comment at 8.15.11 @ 11:25AM. How do you explain say Germany's continuing success (in increasing standard of living and quality of life of their middle class) and continuing ability of German companies to produce - year after year - SO MANY high value added TANGIBLE products (that the rest of the world is willing to buy) so that only in 2010 15-times (also export oriented) Peoples Republic of China took from them #1 spot as export surplus leader.
  
  BTW: As far as inflation as solution to America's dire problem is NOT certainly Obama's original idea. Why, for example, you think that in 2001-2006 average American home (and there are about 115 million of them) grew on average by 89% in value? Talk about artificial growth of wealth! It was in response to (intentional, calculated, also by global politics guided) monetary and credit expansion on steroids under Greenspan's Fed.
  
  Also: Please note, in my example of better policies practiced by Germany, that regulations (both labor market and environment) are in Germany at least as stringent as here, yet, Germany is exporting so much (thus has not monetarized, short lived, but by exports of tangible products supported) healthy economy (which for 2 yr now is humming after global recession).
  1. Lew Glendenning 14 years ago
    
    Germany is NOT doing 'very well'. It has averaged 1% GDP growth for each of the last 12 years. Fortunately, its native population is contracting, so they don't have a jobs crisis yet.
    
    West Germany is still subsidizing E Germany by $80 every year. It is on the hook for huge bailouts of other EU countries, or else its own banks will go broke and it will have to bail out the banks.
    
    Germany depends on the economies of the other EU countries to do well, as it is an exporter. Ditto Russia and the old USSR countries. None of those countries are doing well, so it is unlikely Germany will continue to grow at 1% / year.
    
    Germany is definitively NOT an example of a managed economy that has done well for 50+ years. In fact, it is about to become another notable failure in that regard.
Robb 14 years ago

More jobs? Repeal NAFTA and GATT.
???? ?????? 14 years ago

thank u
Zach Foreman 14 years ago

To improve job growth, one has to make it easier to hire workers. It is that simple. Here are some short- and long-term suggestions:
A one-year moratorium on payroll taxes.
Repeal the federal minimum wage.

Longer term:
Get rid of federal income tax. If you want less of something, tax it. We apparently want fewer people earning income, i.e. fewer jobs.
Decouple health-care/pensions from employment. Privatized, portable benefits would allow more dynamism in the job market and make it easier to compare jobs, since salary and location would be the prime criteria.
Daniel 14 years ago

For the love of God! Didn't anyone's mother or grandmother ever just say "quit picking at it - it'll heal all by itself".

Two to three year morotorium on regulations - and lay off the PhD's the government has hired in the last 3 or 4 years to write them.

Have the President, who has bemoaned the choke-hold that regulation has put on business, DIRECT his agencies (they're all in the executive branch, which he heads), to stop their nonsense and delete all the most horrendous of them.

That's all it is going to take to let businesses grow and expand.

Just quit "pickin at it"......
Dee Senate 14 years ago

[b]The tax code is a $540 billion drag on economic growth.[br] "Money Received" is a mathematically certain and self defining flat tax base.
Therefore, when multiplied by a flat tax rate, it transforms into the FreedomIncomeTax, a super flat tax: [br] Money Received x Tax Rate = Tax Payable.[br] With this income tax there is no filing, no reporting, and no paperwork. Bank software collects this tax in real time as money flows through the banking system with precise reporting to the taxpayer and the goverment.[br] Scalable pilot program "dry run" simulations will fully demonstrate the projected incredible efficiency of this tax that will extract income tax revenue without the $504 billion annual drag on the economy. [br]See the 5 basics in 276 words at http://www.FreedomIncomeTax.com[br][/b%5D
Post 65 by Dee Senate,Trust Agent,Private Sector.
Catherine West 14 years ago

As long as the Executive Branch has 2600 Departments and Agencies + the additional, useless ones from PPAA; with 15% employment growth in gov. employment; and absolutely no regulation which respects or obeys The Supreme Law; -- External Government of Soros-Obama Socialism will dominate and ruin the capital and assets of our nation, unless it is absent in all forms - including Departments and Agencies which duplicate or interfere with private profit and not for profit enterprise. Create jobs means shutdown - close down the much too gigantic force of this government. Get rid of the Regulations, which cause loss of life, liberty, and happiness to persons and 'persons as business'; continue 'PRIVATE' not enviornmental or any control except "Internal Government of conscience with "Religion and Integrity" over the last 391 years (Mayflower Compact). Let the innovation, R&D of exploring the Next Frontier - the Universe; and release the government's leash on the Monetary system as both Fed. Reserve and as the gov. attempting to prevent 'bubbles' it caused with the disastrous Patient Protection and Affordable "Anti-law" fiasco!
1. Dee Senate 14 years ago
  
  Catherine - I see replacing the function of the income tax code
  to be in keeping with the principles
  you set forth in your subject comments.
  Do you see the FreedomIncomeTax
  (www.FreedomIncomeTax.com)as a step in the right direction of economic growth and job growth?
teapartydoc 14 years ago

All of the suggestions look good except those by Bartlett and Tabarrok. I think Tabarrrok may be kidding, but I suspect Bartlett may be getting Alzheimer's disease or might be afflicted with Beltway Retardation Syndrome.
egoist 14 years ago

1) get people to question the notion that "they are their brother's keeper".
2) ban the initiation of force (which would clobber more than half of the laws on the books - including min-wage).
fred j 14 years ago

fix the corporate tax structure to give some certainty then a tax holiday to perhaps a 7% rate. as the money comes back dedicate the tax revenue to a jobs/infrastructure bank. use for example to give hiring bonuses to employees to match skills with employer requirements but who may be immobile due to housing situation
Charles Horton 14 years ago

I believe my credentials are as good as any in this article: a 1964 Bachelor degree with a major in Economics from Missouri State University. My recommendation to the President would be to announce the complete removal of all oil drilling restrictions in the continental United States. The effect would be instantly recognized by business managers and the confidence would build.
boomshanka 14 years ago

Holy shit except for Bartlett what a bunch of fucking lunatics! Fred Smith from the Competitive Enterprise Institue is particularly shameless - I wonder how much money he stands to make on that Keystone pipeline. Wowww, 20,000 jobs, that ought to put a dent in unemployment. What a lowlife.
Andrew W. 14 years ago

I have a foolproof, if painful, plan to achieve full employment (0% unemployment) in America. It's basically a plan that requires 3 major changes to U.S. government policies. 1-Get rid of all minimum wage laws, allowing wages to be an agreement determined between employers and employees alone, without government involvement. Get rid of, or just greatly shorten the duration of, all Unemployment Insurance benefits, encouraging people to rapidly seek employment after losing a job. 3-Get rid of Welfare, giving people a sustainable way to live without working. Like I said, painful, and there will be much more to consider than just the 3 major changes. People will still seek other government benefits like Disability, which will require much more scrupulous review. Also, making all these changes must be gradual, in order to prevent European style rioting. But there are other things that must be done as well. Getting rid of Corporate Taxes will encourage business growth in this country rather than encouraging the outsourcing of American jobs. But in order to get rid of Corporate Taxes without increasing Personal Income Taxes, we also have to reduce all the major programs sucking up all our tax dollars: Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and Social Security. Reduce the eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. Gradually raise the age of eligibility for SS to match the average life expectancy, as the program was originally designed to function. And, as a veteran myself, I would like to see our military drastically reduced. End our wars overseas, shut down half of our foreign bases, and gradually reduce our military spending down to half of what it is now. Focus our military spending more on defending our own borders rather than policing the world.
air max 24-7 14 years ago

say good!wholesale air max
cheap air max 2011
nike air max 95
cheap air max 24-7
nike air max 87
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 97
air max 24-7 14 years ago

say good!
A refugee from East Euro commu 14 years ago

I had a priviledge to live in the US for 30+ years now, made good money as engineer (energy sector), started and run a DC-based national nonprofit to assist democracy + free market in postcommunist Europe, served as financial advisor, for years also involved and observed Beltway and local politics, interested in economics and how things really work. I have to smile (and continue to worry about my children and grandkids to start with) when I see the gridlock and argumentation (from left and right) as how to start getting from this really bad mess (and that we are in a mess is something almost everyone at last agrees on). Both left and right are - yet again - pushing their (exhaused, traditional) solutions. Here Fox'es John Stassel's: shut down US DoL, DOE, etc,. etc. is not even funny. Mine humble suggestion how to start turning things around to benefit MAJORITY of Americans, i.e. the (real) middle class to start with continues to be EXPORT-oriented economy (and supporting system, from educational and labor-training, to some corporate priorities and sound governmental polities).

The statistics (regardless how distorted, see not only intentionally low official CPI while real inflation has been twice as high) show that average American income (adjusted even for that artificially low inflation) has been stagnating since 1978. The current generation of men is first in history earning LESS than their fathers. Also for years now I have been asking my fellow Americans, faculty members, bankers, financiers from Wall Street, economic development folks at state and local level, business people of any stripe,

HOW they (subscribing to our dear, laissez-fair etc. theories and ideology) explain say Germany's ability to give its middle class very good standard of living while at the same time 1) paying one of the highest wages 2) "spoiling" workers with benefits such as (true) universal healthcare, 5 weeks of annual paid vacation (which people are actually not afraid to take), unemployment benefits one can even take a family for short vacation on Crete, free university tuition, etc. many of benefits which Americans are not even allowed (by Fox etc.) to dream about 3) environmental and labor-law regulations certainly as strict as in the US 4) strong currency, euro, which appreciated against US$ by at least 40% since its conception only 10 yrs ago, while our leaders are telling us that weak dollars will - at last - close our outrageous history of trade deficits 5) carrying a HUGE burden of German reunification for 20 years now. Just IMAGINE, for sake of argument, that Canada used to be one of our states, then felt for 40 years under communist mismanagement, everything, including infrastructure desolated. Would we be willing to take them, like 60 mils of West Germans dis with 20 mils East Germans, back in fold, giving them everything like to our own? Would we, unable and unwilling to extend health insurance to 30 millions be willing to take care of 100 millions of our survivors of communism - like Germans 1/3 of original population? You, the reader tell me! .... Yet despite all those things (plus inability to enjoy, like US, a HUGE free ride via printing the worlds reserve currency, Germany continues to be able not only to provide growing standard of living for its middle class but is making, year after year, so many HIGH-VALUE added TANGIBLE products that only in 2010, 15-times larger, export oriented machine, Peoples Republic of China took over number one spot as global export surplus leader.

So far I never got any sound response to this question. I believe that it is CULTURAL. We love being lawyers, financiers, marketers, creative writers. Engineering, math, science, etc. ... to hard, too boring, better left to "nerds", mostly immigrants from Asia or Eastern Europe (no West Europeans have been immigrating here over the past 30 years anyway). Starting with elementary school grades (feminized) schools are torturing kids with "communication", "creative writing", "persuasive communication" ... like Hollywood and TV have jobs for all of them or such skills will improve our trade deficits. We spend (waste?) twice as much (in $ terms and as share of GDP) on healthcare, yet not only our friends at FOX tell us that invisible hand of market is the most efficient way. Note: Please, do not tell me that Canadians are rushing here to get surgeries, I know the facts, not only as Masters in Health Admin grad:). Like our cousins in UK after WW2, we are deeply in debt, yet habits die hard. Unlike Britons, we dont even have metric system to make and export any products. Reagan told us that metric system is Un-American". Our businesses, not having properly (engineering etc.) educated talent and blue-collar workforce trained at globally competitive levels, with our banks refusing financing UNLESS their business plan has "China strategy" prominently in them, with governmental policies (unlike in Germany, PRC, elsewhere) not smartly supporting exports .... I in vain trying yet another marketing gimmick to sell on DOMESTIC market, stealing a bone from each other, while our trade deficits grow and dollar is getting weaker.

Great democratic debate, free media, checks-and-balances, all those things we are so proud of do not allow us to start getting things right. And when the the communist China will - inevitably - one day figure out that Uncle Sam is vulnerable enough, it will start "diversification" from its 3 trillion of dollar holdings. Chicken will come to roost. Now even Sam Zell agrees with me saying that American standard of living will (further) drop by 25% when we lose free ride of printing reserve currency.

I know, John Stassel et al., this wouldn't make for good viewership evening news. But, for myself, I don't want to emigrate one more time, I want my kids and grandkids stay here. But yes, our EU citizenship looks increasingly as an attractive backup solution.
1. Sven 14 years ago
  
  Thank you Sir. As a German national who calls the US home I share your concerns and agree with your analysis. It is sad to see that Americans really believe their health care system is the best in the world, while there are systems out there like Germany's which are clearly superior and cost 50% less of GDP. (BTW, German insurance companies are profit making corporations owned by the government. People who cannot afford insurance get part or all of it paid for by the government. That solution is so simple and brilliant it would not stand a chance in this country.) The problem is that no American has the slightest idea that everything you described is reality in other countries. It must sound like paradise to the average American, especially those millions of middle class people who now lost their health insurance because they lost their jobs.
  I agree with your final comment on the possibility of having to emigrate again, which would suck. But if they continue on their current path, America will be a second world country very soon. I am lucky to work in one of the few industries where the US is still the world market leader (Media & Entertainment). But until they come up with new industries that create real value, goods and services they can export, and fair compensation for their workers, this country is doomed.
Lloyd Taylor 14 years ago

How to edit this important article to make it quicker reading:
Economists propose real ways to increase job growth
Robert Higgs, REPEAL OF OBAMA CARE

Deirdre McCloskey, ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR PEOPLE YOUNGER THAN 25

Amity Shlaes, REFORM OUR FEDERAL RESERVE; RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD.

John Stossel, CLOSE THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND HUD

Don Boudreaux, REPLACE ALL INCOME TAXES, INCLUDING THAT ON CAPITAL GAINS, WITH A CONSUMPTION TAX

Bryan Caplan, CUT EMPLOYERS' SHARE OF THE PAYROLL TAX.

Bruce Bartlett, DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR

Jeffrey A. Miron, ELIMINATING ENTITLEMENTS, TAX CODE, EXCESSIVE REGULATION

John Berlau, REPEAL SARBANES-OXLEY ACT; REPEAL DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT; PASS SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ENHANCEMENT ACT

Allan Meltzer, MORATORIUM ON NEW REGULATION; CORPORATE TAX RATE REDUCTION

Ira Stoll, STOP EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DECREASES OVER TIME.

Walter Olson, VAPORIZE EMPLOYMENT LAW: AGE DISCRIMINATION

Peter Schiff, ALLOW THE FREE MARKET TO SET WAGES, BENEFITS, AND ALL ISSUES RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT; MINIMUM WAGE LAWS SHOULD BE REPEALED.

Alex Tabarrok, QE3

Fred L. Smith APPROVE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

Lucy Steigerwald |

August 12, 2011

Faced with a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, a deeply disgruntled public and a creeping election season, President Barack Obama is hastily "pivoting" away from the debt ceiling debate toward jobs. In Michigan, where the unemployment rate is 10.5 percent, the president recently proclaimed "We know that there are things that we can do right now that will support job growth." Things like building roads, extending unemployment benefits, cutting payroll taxes, and that old standby, clean energy.

Like Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blames partisan bickering in Washington for the nation's economic woes and recently accused Republicans of having "passed bills that would destroy up to 2 million jobs?nearly 10,000 jobs per day" in the 200 days since she was booted from her role as House speaker. Pelosi, of course, is an old hand at job pivotry. She prefers her jobs bought and paid for by federal money, and in a pleasing shade of green.

Republicans have their own jobs agenda, but mostly prefer to talk trash about the Democrats. "Spurring jobs and the economy is always next on the Obama Administration's to-do list," sniped Current House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in an August 3 blog post, "right after more spending, more taxing, and more regulating."

Meanwhile, the American people are raising a collective skeptical eyebrow at both parties on the employment front. A July Pew Research poll showed an even 39-39 split on which party Americans trust more on jobs. But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that only 29 percent of respondants think there will be more jobs in their communities a year from now?and 26 percent think there will be fewer jobs.

In an effort to produce real free-market ideas for boosting employment, Reason asked some of our favorite economists, writers, professors, and entrepreneurs for one concrete policy change they would recommend that would increase job growth. ?Lucy Steigerwald

Robert Higgs

REPEAL OF OBAMA CARE would probably do wonders to spur hiring, especially for permanent positions. Compensation for such jobs usually includes a benefits package with health care insurance, as well as a money wage or salary. Health care insurance often constitutes a major part of the employer's cost of keeping a permanent worker on the payroll, and anything that makes this cost difficult to forecast makes employers leery to take on new workers.

ObamaCare?the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?is a gigantic statute, and it would be a big bite for employers to digest in any event. But as it stands, it serves mainly as an announcement that a large number of legal black boxes must be filled with new regulations that various administrative agencies will eventually promulgate. As Gary Lawson has written recently, "Implementation of the Act will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations that will determine its substantive content and coverage."

This situation creates tremendous uncertainty that affects virtually all firms. After all, no matter how firms may differ in other regards, they all hire employees, and in most cases employee compensation amounts to a major part of their total cost of operation. Repeal of ObamaCare would have many benefits, but surely a great benefit would be the removal of an ominous cloud of uncertainty about a critical matter that now hangs over the entire labor market. In the face of this uncertainty, few firms have been, or will be, willing to assume the risk associated with increasing their permanent, full-time workforce.

Robert Higgs is a senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute. He is the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Criticial Episodes in the Growth of American Government, and several other books.

Deirdre McCloskey

"Jobs" are deals between workers and employers, and so "creating" them out of unwilling parties is impossible. The state, though, can outlaw deals, and has. So: ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR PEOPLE YOUNGER THAN 25. The resulting boom in jobs for young people will amaze. Maybe it will inspire voters to get the state out of the job-outlawing business. Probably not, so sure are we that the state "protects" by stopping deals between willing parties.

- Show quoted text -
Deirdre McCloskey is a professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and author of The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce.

Amity Shlaes
The single thing the U.S. could do to ensure long-term growth, including that of jobs, is to REFORM OUR FEDERAL RESERVE so that monetary policy is rules-based, not personality-based. Even a RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD would do, though it is also possible to fashion a monetary regime under which the currency is pegged to a basket of commodities.
Amity Shlaes is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Her biography of Calvin Coolidge will be released next spring.
John Stossel
CLOSE THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND HUD, then eliminate three fourths of all regulations.
John Stossel's show Stossel airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. on Fox Business Network. He contributes a regular column to Reason.com.
Donald Boudreaux
My answer (within the realm of "remotely politically possible") is: REPLACE ALL INCOME TAXES, INCLUDING THAT ON CAPITAL GAINS, WITH A CONSUMPTION TAX. But do this only if the Constitution is amended to prevent government from taxing incomes and capital gains.
A second, less radical, proposal is to eliminate capital gains taxes and amend the Constitution to prevent Uncle Sam from taxing personal and corporate incomes at marginal rates higher than 20 percent.
Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, and blogs at Cafe Hayek.
Bryan Caplan
Easy: CUT EMPLOYERS' SHARE OF THE PAYROLL TAX.
Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He is the author of The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, and most recently, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think.
Bruce Bartlett
I don't believe there is any way to increase employment significantly without raising the rate of economic growth. Therefore, the real question is how to raise economic growth. I continue to believe that the economy's fundamental problem is a lack of aggregate demand.
I think a dose of inflation is just what the economy needs and libertarians should stop being so obsessive about it. Moreover, I think at some point they need to admit that the Fed cannot raise aggregate demand by itself when the economy is in a liquidity trap, which it obviously is based on the level of interest rates being close to zero.
Under these circumstances, I believe that some form of aggressive fiscal policy is necessary to get money circulating, raise the velocity of money, and get the economy out of a liquidity trap. I do not believe, under current circumstances, there is any type of tax cut that would achieve this goal; only direct spending by the government on purchases of goods and services will help. Therefore, the Fed will, somehow or other, have to figure out how to raise aggregate demand by itself.
The only other thing I can think of to raise growth would be a deliberate DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR, which would raise exports. Theoretically, the Fed could buy as much foreign currency as necessary to bring the dollar down. But this is impractical because foreign countries can retaliate by buying dollars with their own currency or impose restrictions on U.S. imports. Any policy of devaluation would be strenuously opposed domestically by those who are obsessed with the idea that the dollar should be strong regardless of the economic conditions.
I realize that everything I have just said is totally contrary to the libertarian worldview. However, I believe that implementation of libertarian policies, such as cutting spending and tightening monetary policy, under current economic conditions will only make it worse. I support any regulatory measure anyone can think of to reduce unemployment, but am disinclined to think there are any that will have more than a trivial effect under current macroeconomic conditions.
Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official under George H.W. Bush. His most recent book is The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.
Jeffrey Miron
Policymakers should stop worrying about job growth. Instead, they should focus on ELIMINATING economic policies that impede economic efficiency?runaway ENTITLEMENTS, a horrendous TAX CODE, EXCESSIVE REGULATION, impediments to free trade, and more?and then let the job situation fix itself.
Jeffrey Miron is the director of undergraduate studies and a professor of economics at Harvard University.
John Berlau
REPEAL portions of the Bush-era SARBANES-OXLEY ACT to make it easier for smaller companies to raise capital by going public, and thus expand and create thousands more jobs.

Repeal portions of last year's DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, which has created hundreds of pending rules causing uncertainty and a halt in hiring for everyone from banks and credit unions to retailers and manufacturers that extend credit or hedge financial risks with derivatives.

- Show quoted text -
PASS the bipartisan SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ENHANCEMENT ACT?S. 509 by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), and in HR 1418, by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.)?to lift the aribitrary cap on business lending by credit unions. The Credit Union National Association estimates that easing this barrier would create over 140,000 jobs in the first year and thousands more in the years after that.
John Berlau is director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Allan Meltzer
We have made the mistake of using short-term policy changes to try to cope with a long-term problem. There are several long-term changes called for. There is great uncertainty and lack of confidence in the future. That reduces investment and employment. One change that would reduce uncertainty is a five-year MORATORIUM ON NEW REGULATION except for national security. Another would be a budget agreement that made the debt sustainable. Not likely. Third; CORPORATE TAX RATE REDUCTION paid for by closing loopholes. Finally, we need assurance that we won't have inflation. A credible, enforced inflation target would work.
Allan Meltzer is a professor of economics and the political economy at the Carnegie Mellon University Kepper School of Business.
Ira Stoll
Congress should STOP EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, and better yet, restructure the unemployment insurance program or block-grant it to the states to allow them to experiment with ways of doing so. The idea is to change the program so it creates an incentive for recipients to get a job, rather than an incentive for them to remain unemployed.
This could involve altering the UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT formula so that the amount of the payment GRADUALLY DECREASES OVER TIME, reducing the propensity of beneficiaries to stay on unemployment until they frantically search for a job and find it just as the benefits run out.
Or it could involve allowing states "the flexibility to convert their unemployment insurance payments from checks sent to the jobless into vouchers that can be used by companies to hire workers," as Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Alter suggests, relaying an idea from a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, Alan Khazei.
Or it could involve changing the program so recipients get a hefty share of their benefits up front, as a lump sum. They can then use the money as capital to start small businesses. Or if they find a job quickly, they can save or invest or spend the money. (No repeat passes, though; the idea is to increase incentives for finding or creating a job, not rewards for people who get themselves fired.) Another approach might be to fold unemployment together with health, college, homeownership and retirement as expenses that people can save for in a tax-favored account.
Ira Stoll is the editor and founder of FutureOfCapitalism.com and the author of Samuel Adams: A Life. His weekly column appears at Reason.com.

Walter Olson
If I could press a button and instantly VAPORIZE one sector of EMPLOYMENT LAW, I think I'd pick AGE DISCRIMINATION.
Its beneficiaries are among those needing least assistance. The main cash-and-carry effect of age-bias law is to confer legal leverage on older male holders of desirable jobs, such as managers, pilots, and college professors, who by threatening to raise the issue can extract ampler severance packets than might otherwise be offered them. Much legal talent is wasted in the resulting exit negotiations, which seldom seem to rouse the ire of critics of gaudy executive pay, golden parachutes and so forth.
It blatantly backfires on those it tries to help. Once cut loose from the old job, those same buyout recipients find it harder to land the next high-level job because of the perception that older hires are more likely to need buyouts not far down the road.
It generates pointless avoidance mechanisms. Ask your HR director about the costly stage in layoff strategy known as "age-balancing the RIF" or about the many small-talk questions you're not supposed to ask at job interviews for fear of seeming interested in the subject ("I notice you're a veteran. Which war?") or about the brain-cracking legal headaches that arise from the premise that (at least in some situations) the design of pension plans is supposed to take no notice of age.
Its intellectual basis is lighter than helium. Race, sex, sexual orientation and disability each form the basis of a major identity politics movement. But really: "ageism?" It's one thing to abridge liberty to expiate the national guilt of antebellum slavery, but can anyone keep a straight face in proclaiming persons of late middle age a historically oppressed class?
Please, I want to see this law repealed before I'm too old to enjoy it.
Walter Olson is a contributing editor to Reason, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and proprietor of Overlawyered.com.

Peter Schiff
To make the greatest impact on persistent unemployment, the government should pursue policies that ALLOW THE FREE MARKET TO SET WAGES, BENEFITS, AND ALL ISSUES RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT. Just as employees are allowed to leave jobs for whatever reason, employers should be allowed to hire and fire based on any criteria without fear of litigation. In other words, liability cost for hiring employees should be minimized. Employees become easier to hire once employers know that their downside risks are minimized. In addition, all labor laws protecting employees from employers, including MINIMUM WAGE LAWS, SHOULD BE REPEALED.
Employment is a voluntary relationship between two parties. Our laws should reflect and support that concept to the highest extent possible. Employees do not qualify for special privileges (inappropriately labeled worker's rights) simply because they accept a job, and employers do not lose their rights and become subjected to special obligations just because they hire. The playing field should be level.
Peter Schiff is the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital and the author of How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
Alex Tabarrok
QE3: Fed should buy lots of long term T-bonds.
Alex Tabarrok is the Bartley J. Madden Professor of Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Fred L. Smith

APPROVE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: 20,000 jobs created. The 1,700 mile Keystone XL Pipeline would link expanding Canadian crude production from tar sands with America's first-class refining hub in the Midwest and along the Gulf. The $7 billion project would roughly double U.S. imports of tar sands oil from western Canada.

Because the Keystone XL pipeline crosses an international border, the primary permitting agency is the State Department. However, oil production from tar sands is more carbon-intensive than traditional production, so environmentalist groups are staunchly opposed to it. As a result, the project has been in a permitting limbo for three years. By approving the project in short order, President Barack Obama would directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2013, according to an independent analysis by the Perryman Group.

Fred L. Smith Jr. is the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://reason.com/archives/201.....o-to-impro
Lew Glendenning 14 years ago

There is a substantial literature comparing 'total government burden' with economic growth rate : generally the larger the gov burden, the lower the rate of GDP growth.

The economy is enormously complex, far beyond human intellectual capacity. If you want to do a control system, you better be able to write the equations, have sufficient coverage in the sensor network and sufficient power in the effectors. Otherwise you are just waving your hands.

Nobody has any of these, which is why there is NO economy in the world which has been successfully managed by ANY government.

The answer to 'more jobs' is clearly to reduce the total gov burden.

If we adhered to the US Constitution, there would be no budget/spending/deficit debate.

This government is completely illegitimate : Congress no longer represents its constituency, and the Government no longer adheres to the Constitution.

Reason is in bed with the Koch brothers, who aren't in the least Libertarian. Which is why so few of us notice its articles.
Vern Bonham III 14 years ago

I built and started a new business in California. In my endeavor to build a good service oriented business I have run into several divisions, ie, ABC for a beer license, Heath Department,Planning Department, Franchise Tax board, Fish and Game just to mention a few. Not one of the inspectors has been helpful in my attempt to obtain the necessary licenses to open my store. This kind of treatment has me convinced that the governing bodies don't want my tax revenue. They do not want business to succeed. In Fact one of the statements made by the ABC investigator was, "why don't you just sell what you have". As a full Service store I have to offer a wide variety of goods and services or I will go under. As it is..... Im going under! Thanks for your help!
???? ?????? 14 years ago

thank u
Bob 14 years ago

All of the authors on this 'article' are full of poo. Even Peter Schiff's opinion here sucks. Endless "Let's carry on thinking in exactly the same patterns as before." Yeah, why not? It's not as if it led us over the edge of a bottomless chasm or anything. /sarc/
Phyllis 14 years ago

Establish Fair Tax and it will bring back industries and companies from abroad and there will be plenty of jobs.
tom beebe 14 years ago

Like a baseball umpire, the job of the government must not be to portion out runs, but to see that everybody plays by the rules. The government policys must be turned completely away from redistributing wealth and towards creating wealth, in which all might share. If its not created, it can't be shared. Duh!
www.iphone-5-release.net 14 years ago

http://www.iphone-5-release.net | We Are The Top Source of Up To Date News, Information, and Rumors About the iPhone 5, iPhone 6. Our Team Updates You Hourly So You Are Always Informed.(http://iphone-5-release.net/) iphone 5
PolishKnight 14 years ago

Nobody says the obvious. The issue isn't "job growth". There are plenty of low paying jobs in agriculture or the service industry, for example. The question is how to reduce unemployment and raise overall wages.

The single biggest way to accomplish this as compared to a Keynesian economic system is to turn the clock back on feminism. This would actually reduce the overall labor rolls including daycare administrators, divorce attorneys, child protective services caseworkers, etc. "But", I can hear the reader asking, "What about all the essential jobs that career women do?" Well, those would be done by men hence millions of jobs would be "created" in addition to a reduction in crime and male unemployment. Feminism has put more black men into prison to benefit privileged white women than the KKK. In addition, millions of women on welfare who were unable to find 1950's breadwinning men would be off the welfare rolls. Win-win!

Feminism's ideal family is the two parent wageearner but it's also the most unstable. When a woman is unable to find an equal man or outearns him, she will divorce him or remain unmarried. The dual income family has to inefficiently deal with daycare and "balancing work and home" and almost never will the solution mean a SAH father. Hence, there is stress on the father to live up to the breadwinner role little different than the 1950's and for what? For women to pretend to be equal?

Feminism inextricably tied to socialism and even anti-humanism but many libertarians and even conservatives refuse to acknowledge this just as they embrace diversity and multiculturalism while living in segregated gated-communities. Nobody wants to be the one to say that the world can't give everyone what they want and they especially don't want to tell it to a woman who claims that she could be a nobel prize winner (on the other hand, a man who wants to be a SAH father rather than a factory worker is just told to "man up" and deal with it).
Mr. Mark 14 years ago

Means-test social security and medicare payments.

Repeal Obamacare.
smith 14 years ago

Rhinoplasty photos are intended to show how to improve your physical appearance. Many times one can feel uncountable with certain aspects of the way we look. The goal of plastic and cosmetic surgery and of rhinoplasty is to make us feel better about ourselves. Due to today's advances getting rhinoplasty is easy and safe. New techniques are developed all the time to make sure that the rhinoplasty results are better; that there are fewer side effects after a rhinoplasty and recovery time is shorter.
George Meredith MD 14 years ago

Nurse Pelosi and Dr. Obama on Health Care Reform

Picture this. It's early September. The city's courageous Leader, crusader for truth and justice, victor of dozens of battles, during the past two and half centuries, is rushed to the big city emergency room with fluid around his heart. His pericardium is filled with pus and the tension in this sack is compressing each heartbeat The Leader (of the free world) is dying right before our very eyes. Immediate, meaningful action must be taken now!

Enter the dapper, slick talking, new emergency room chief. Let's call him Doctor Obama. Everyone in the emergency room on this dark, gloomy, late afternoon knows that quick, decisive action must be taken, if the Leader is to be saved. But what to do?

It is for sure that the Leader's last doctors, Dr. Bush and his trusty, ever-present partner, Dr. Cheney, certainly didn't know what to do. The multiple procedures that Doctors Bush and Cheney had done to the Leader, over the preceding 8 years had, in every instance, made the Leader worse?much worse!!

Nevertheless, Doctors Bush and Cheney and their corrupt, white collar colleagues had made enormous sums of money off the Leader, with all their clever CPT codes and duplicate billings But now the Leader is but a mere shadow of himself?. the Leader is dying!!

But what to do? Up steps the dysfunctional emergency room charge nurse. Let's call her Charge Nurse Pelosi. Nurse Pelosi, with that fixed and constant smile, says to Dr. Obama, "let me handle this?leave everything up to me. I'll tell you what you need to do to save the Leader." she says with that dumb looking, inappropriate smile of hers.

It seems that Nurse Pelosi and Nurse Jane Harman, both ranking members of the hospital's Executive Committee, had been complicit of flagrant, repeated malpractice for their part in covering up a series of grotesque, unacceptable procedures performed on a number of Arab and Persian patients by Doctors Bush and Cheney. In order to defraud these patients' Medicaid and Medicare Insurance of enormous sums of money. In stark contradiction to the hospital's bylaws. Keeping this in mind, Nurse Pelosi's and Nurse Harman's recommendations, in the Leaders case, surely could not be considered legitimate.

Anyway, Nurse Pelosi, with that fixed and constant smile, says to Dr. Obama, "now is the time for health care reform. Doctors Bush and Cheney have totally screwed up our health care system. The system is too expensive. And provides inadequate care". (As if air head Pelosi would know the difference between quality care and inadequate care.)

Nurse Pelosi says to Dr. Obama, "here's what we are going to do! Send down to the ghettos and bring up some of those half way doctors who can barely speak English. Along with their cadres of lawyers and administrators.?And do this STAT! We'll get these guys in here and let them take care of the Leader's pericardial tamponade. It will be a lot cheaper. And will give us time to rove around the city giving slick speeches?convincing the people that we are doing everything possible to save the leader, while simultaneously reducing health care costs".

Nurse Pelosi rambled on?"Look we'd be saving money?and maybe even getting the Leader through this current crisis. While simultaneously establishing a new health care system in which administrators, health care lawyers, physician assistants and nurse practitioners will flourish. In a new health care system in which they can, finally, become autonomous. Like in Russia and Cuba. You don't see the Russians and the Cubans wasting all their resources trying to save patients who are (eventually) going to die anyway, do you?"

George Meredith MD

Virginia Beach

Footnote:

Medicaid and Medicare fraud cases with multimillion dollar settlements: CVS, Merck, Health South, Walgreen's, Seven NY hospitals, Smith Kline, Damon Labs, Tenet Health, Hewlett Packard, Pfizer, Tenet Health, Tap Pharmaceuticals, HCA, National Health Labs, Quorum Health, Corning Met Pharmaceuticals, etc, etc?.talk about make work for hoards of administrators and health care lawyers.
freegames68.com 14 years ago

http://www.freegames68.com |free games, flash games, best flash games, free flash games online, play free flash games online, mario flash game (http://freegames68.com/) free games
????? ?????? 13 years ago

Thanks
????? ?????? 13 years ago

Thanks
????? ?????? 13 years ago

Thanks
????? ?????? 13 years ago

Thanks

Please log in to post comments

What Would You Do to Improve Job Growth?

Reason asks economists, writers, and wonks for real ways to increase job growth

Latest

The Government Threatened To Seize His Home Over Tall Grass

The Logical Contradictions of Trump's Case for Tariffs

Cops Called on Dad for Playing Catch with 14-Year-Old Son at Park

ICE Denies Reason Access to Immigration Court In Miami Detention Center

Deported for Innocent Tattoos?

Recommended

Login Form