Stimulate, Stimulate Wisely!

-

We need to stimulate more now; however we must do it wisely. Today is not like the Great Depression. We stimulated then because we had no choice.

  1. As war was approaching we had no choice but to prepare for it. We would have had no future if we hadn't.
  2. After the war we were the last industrialized nation standing and the result was our economy boomed with no competition as the rest of the world was rebuilding and we were doing the building.

Today, the answer to the question of whether we should stimulate is less clear. Further, there is much more competition than after World War II and therefore, we cannot expect today's recovery to be as quick as the forties and fifties of the last century. This does not mean we should't try on three fronts.

  1. Implement a stimulus package that focuses on investing in things that will help us compete in the future, like transportation infrastructure and upgrading the internet.
  2. Address the debt problem. This would be a confidence builder. The American public watched as our leaders could not reach agreement on a long-term plan to solve the debt problem. Our citizenry are now doubting whether it will ever be fixed. This "confidence boogeyman" must be put to rest
  3. We must do more concerning the mortgage crisis and the precipitous drop in home prices. As home prices fell, so did the net worth of a large portion of our population. This should be addressed using very little of the tax payers money. More: Retribution

Comments

  1. DeckardMay 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM

    And you call yourselves free marketeers???

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 14, 2012 at 7:09 AM

    Being in favor of free markets does not mean you do not take action when the market is weak.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousAugust 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    Read a column recently on where you can get the fastest internet connections in the nation...
    Chattanooga, TN, where the city spent the money to provide fiber-optic links literally city wide. You can now get internet speed measured in gigs, not megs, and for less than almost any private company offers it. They did it because they couldn't get the commercial providers to expand to certain neighborhoods, nor would they upgrade.
    Meanwhile, the state of North Dakota (a "red" state) has copied FDR's old Rural Electrification program to expand internet to ALL homes in the state, no matter how remote or rural, at affordable prices.
    The column then went on to point out in the '90s we were number one in the world for fastest, cheapest, most widely available 'net access. Now? We're down around 25-30th in the world, surpassed by nations that have invested in their infrastructure. Meanwhile, here in the US, the companies who've collected the extra tax for years intended to help pay for upgrades and improvements have seen that money go to corporate bottom-line improvement, not product improvement. And in some rural areas, Verizon has been caught literlly stripping their own landlines of copper (to sell off at a huge profit) and requiring those previously served by old land lines to sign up for more expensive cell service (and even more expensive data download for the internet) if they want phone service at all...

    Sometimes government MUST spend to keep a nation competitive and improving, as the free market (an oxymoronic term if ever there was one, as no such thing has existed since the end of the barter system...and even then it was questionable if it was a "free" market) doesn't always do what is in the best interest of the nation and it's people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stephen BanickiAugust 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

    Anonymous said...August 8, 2012 2:20 PM

    Now that is what is needed! Forward thinking

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Keep Freedom on The Internet!

-
Image
Net neutrality under attack:   Don't let Verizon and Google dictate the future of the Internet. Contact the FCC! This post reflects a comment received from Common Cause. It is time to stand up with them and keep the internet free . As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers how to write the rules to protect freedom and openness on the Internet,   who should they turn to: consumers like you and me, or the oligopolistic telecommunications companies?   Verizon and Google announced this week that they have it all figured out when it comes to net neutrality.* They unveiled a policy framework that would give telecom companies the right to speed up or slow down certain kinds of content, and to block outright  applications or content on wireless networks.
Read More

What Can Free Market Conservatives Do?

-
I am a free market conservative. I voted republican in every presidential election since 1968, except one. It is obvious that our government must live within its means and do so in a manner as not to interfere with a functioning free market economy. If we desire to take control of government, we must demand government carry out one of its primary functions; protecting free markets from tyranny, both public and private. We are vocal about defending it from public tyranny, but silent when it comes to tyranny in the private sector. “Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Louis Brandeis 1928 Today our focus seems to be only on the tyranny of government when it comes to free markets. We need t
Read More

China And The Five Baits

-
Image
If you are under the age of 50 you should be concerned about China from an economic and global power standpoint. Some believe China is seeking peace with the rest of the world. Based on their long history, I am not convinced. For China long term is hundreds of years and for the United States it is the next election cycle. China's focus is always on the long term. Much of this post is drawn from a book,  On China , written by Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State under President Nixon and a research paper of the National Intelligence Council titled  Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds . Whether the future will prove China's desire for peaceful co-existence depends on whether its middle class will sufficiently benefit from economic growth and not allow their leadership to throw it away by creating enemies with trading partners.  This requires the country becoming more democratic and less inclined to be a threat to the remainder of the world.  The jury is still looking
Read More