Posted on 08/25/2010 11:33:30 AM PDT by bronkburnett
So how does the USA increase product consumption to cover the loss of consumption by these 40 to 55 year olds?
Demand is not the problem. There is no correct level of demand; wherever it’s at is the right place. We have a problem of (among other things) overproduction caused by artificial credit expansion, which has nothing to do with how many 40 year-olds there are.
My stimulus plan: open up near offshore and land oil and gas development, sell off some western land suitable for development, extend Bush tax cuts, lower capital gains and eliminate inheritance taxes. Encourage legal immigration by attracting the best and brightest through a point system that rewards potential immigrants for high achievement and bringing in capital.
Then, gut the liberal spending programs.
Demand is the problem.
Our economy is based on consumption. With less consumption there is less GDP and less employment. And the biggest consumption group is the one between 40 and 55 years old.
All of the politicians understand this and so does Wall Street, but none mention it. Talking about this is like talking about the elephant in the room because zero population growth is “politically correct” in the western world while having babies is not.
Because of zero population growth, Social Security is in trouble, health care costs per person are increasing, the Caucasian population has dropped to 10% of the total in the world from 25%, and consumption of real goods in the western world is decreasing.
Did you read the entire article or just the extracts?
In order to get a proper score one needs to purchase dozens of clubs and various sized balls.
Also, the golf clubs need to install an increasing array of complex obstacles through which the golfers must play.
*My stimulus plan: open up near offshore and land oil and gas development, sell off some western land suitable for development, extend Bush tax cuts, lower capital gains and eliminate inheritance taxes. Encourage legal immigration by attracting the best and brightest through a point system that rewards potential immigrants for high achievement and bringing in capital.
Then, gut the liberal spending programs.*
Also, take back the REST of Mexico (the part we gave back)that we won 150 years ago.
Sell all the assets and return control of the country to the corrupt government there. Then have them pay us back 30% of all tax revenues (adjusted for inflation so they don’t just print fiat money to pay us back) for all the services given to illegal aliens over the past 40 years.
excellent idea. it is more consumption of goods. and those between 40 and 55 are the biggest consumers of sports equipment. they buy expensive stuff like golf clubs and boats. so if we can get them to play lots of obstacle golf, that will help. or should we just get the government to buy $100 billion of obstacle golf stuff that is made in America with American components and then just throw them away? ... that is what FDR would have done.
*Our federal government should buy $100 billion of finished goods that are made in the United States by U.S. corporations with American-made components … and throw them away. *
I still have no idea why, when the Gov’t was bailing out, [errrr, buying] GM with taxpayer money, they didn’t simply state a plan to produce a Chevy Volt for each taxpaying household in the United States. It would have “solved” both GM’s problems and the problem of “greenhouse” emissions in one fell swoop.
“Our economy is based on consumption...Because of zero population growth, Social Security is in trouble”
I might have listened to anything you said, but if you’re going to pull that one, take a hike. You might as well complain it’s too bad we don’t have slaves anymore, since with less lazy plantation owners the porch-swing, seersucker suit, mint julep, and cigar industries are suffering.
Our economy is most certainly NOT based on consumption. No economy is, nor ever could be. Pickpockets, bandits, pirates, and governments may well be based on consumption, but then that has nothing to do with economics, properly speaking.
“especially with the negative population growth of white people”
I wonder why the economy cares how many white people there are.
“1.3 children per family are not enough babies ... and young white professionals, especially feminists, do not want to hear it. they do not want to hear that no babies means no future.”
This is a good point that has been intentionally and completely ignored by the US liberal media. I know that freepers know the position Western Europe is in with regards to the demographics. If we don’t become a beacon of Western civilization, we could enter a new dark age. The US liberals have clearly casted their lot with militant Islam. Some European liberals might be seeing the light as their civilization sunsets, but it is too late when you have countries like Italy and Spain producing barely over one child per couple.
A strong free-market economy coupled with a newly won respect for the rule of law and US Constitution would be an irresistible magnet for creative and hardworking immigrants from Europe and throughout the world.
We also have to turn around our pro-death, abortion culture.
This is a warped version of Keynesian economics, and will just put us another $100B in debt. If we got rid of the government overhead and government barriers that prevent us from being competitive with the rest of the world, we could produce more than we need, with one earner per family working 40 hours per week.
1. GM should have been allowed to go under. By filing for Chapter 11, the unions would have been forced to renegotiate their contracts and that would have helped the competitiveness of manufacturing in the USA.
2. if the government buys cars and gives them away, it defeats the purpose of creating more demand. did you read this in the actual article:
FDR spent lots of money on infrastructure, increased taxes and used financial bailouts with no impact on the Depression. The Depression finally ended in 1940 when the United States purchased finished goods as part of the “New Deal,” stored them and eventually threw them away; and when it bought goods for World War II. Consumption of goods ended the Depression. Spending on goods for the war and domestic needs created jobs by creating demand throughout the entire manufacturing supply chain. The manufacturing multiplier effect increased the economy and increased tax revenues because of increased consumption of finished goods.
This $100 billion purchase will create a million new jobs throughout the manufacturing supply chain. If a multiplier effect of 15 times occurs, then this could add $1.5 trillion to the economy – which is much more significant than an $860 billion stimulus package – without increasing taxes, inflation and government nationalization of industries. And it would be done without increasing government regulatory powers over private industry. The government will simply be a consumer.
Where will the $100 billion come from? Well, $18 billion per year will come from eliminating earmarks. The remainder will come from eliminating government service projects that have no multiplier effect – like bailouts for teachers and union pension funds. A hundred billion dollars is less than 3 percent of our federal budget and does not add any additional government employees as compared to the $860 billion bailout that increased the government by almost a third.
But here is the kicker. The government will need to destroy these goods it buys with this $100 billion. The government needs to consume products just like firing bullets or dropping bombs. The government cannot give these goods away and it cannot sell these goods. These goods need to be destroyed so they cannot be used to satisfy other existing demand. This program needs to add to demand, not satisfy existing demand, for it to be successful at replacing the missing demand of people between age 40 and 55.
this current administration cannot get any results from all of its spending because it is spending on investments and on services with no multiplier effect at work.
did you get this from the article:
Where will the $100 billion come from? Well, $18 billion per year will come from eliminating earmarks. The remainder will come from eliminating government service projects that have no multiplier effect – like bailouts for teachers and union pension funds. A hundred billion dollars is less than 3 percent of our federal budget and does not add any additional government employees as compared to the $860 billion bailout that increased the government by almost a third.
“look at the economies of countries in Africa and compare them to the western world”
Right, because Africans and black Americans (for instance) are interchangeable.
God help us all now.
“This is a good point that has been intentionally and completely ignored by the US liberal media. I know that freepers know the position Western Europe is in with regards to the demographics. If we don’t become a beacon of Western civilization, we could enter a new dark age”
While undoubtedly there is an issue here, and certainly Europe is less, what shall I say, vital?, than the U.S., that is really more of a cultural problem. It has nothing to do with economics, the supposed subject of this thread. If our entire population lost interest in life and was in a mad dash to annihilate itself, it would still be possible to efficiently allocate scarce resources in the meantime. That is, before everyone was dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.