That said, I fundamentally don’t understand how manufacturing is going to help us. This assumes that there’s some legitimate utility gap to be filled by our excess productive capacity. This seems false. As we’re seeing increases in employment displacement, we’re not simultaneously experiencing slackening in supply of consumable goods and services.

What would be the benefit to simply producing more stuff that nobody buys, and is that even sustainable as a mode for the economy? I keep getting the feeling that people are asking for re-industrialization, and I’m not convinced it makes sense. Do we really need to put people to work expending resources manufacturing more consumables, when we’re not seeing anything resembling a shock to supply? Perhaps we need get to a point where we understand advanced economies fundamentally don’t need all these people engaged in pointless pursuits for their own sake. It seems like we’re trying to prop up our antiquated industrial era income/compensation regimes, because we’re not tackling more fundamental questions about the inherent competition and conflict-of-interest between our micro and macroeconomic incentives?

In the same way that we eventually had to recognize the perils, and necessity to abandon, the propping up of the gold regime as multiple economies moved to industrialization. I’m of increasing suspicion that we’re going to have to look very hard at the role and necessity of maximum-employment in advanced economies; where enterprise continues to pursue automation and mechanization of production.

In short, there just doesn’t seem to be a whole lot for people to do, and perhaps that’s exactly what we’ve been working so hard to achieve. Is the problem unemployment, or could it be that our macroeconomic and social systems aren’t yet capable of dealing with the leisure glut left behind by our microeconomic success?

A broad-based consumption tax can fund such a system for far less than what we now spend annually on non-results oriented health care, while also raising some hundreds of billions for higher education funding and national debt reduction.

What will get Obama and the Democrats killed is the armadillo approach to solving our economic woes. A consumption tax will leave more money in the pockets of consumers, will provide for the next generation of thinkers and doers to fuel American economic growth, and begin the serious business of paying back the trillions we owe to people and entities that would rather not see us self-sufficient again.

Tax cutting your way to prosperity is like drinking your way to sobriety.

lol

Thanks Stirling. I am always smarter when the sun sets on Sundays.

Tax cutting your way to prosperity is like drinking your way to sobriety.

As for fighting in wars, note the ease the supplemental military budget went through. The military is the only stimulus Americans don’t have problems voting for.

If the United States wants to get back on track, the first reality that needs to be addressed is that our present sources of Credit are Japan, which is in a deep funk; China, which does not want the price of resources to rise, and can limit purchases of Treasuries; a pool of the global wealthy; and the oil states.

Ending both wars would that free up enough funding?

The road to long term recovery lies in manufacturing, which has been in a slow bleed for two generations.

I think every Empire’s decline begins when speculation starts to replace production. Roman Grain ships late speculators win. Spanish Silver fleet late speculators don’t get paid. American grow or die Ponzai scheme business plan does not grow fast enough we get Enron, Lehman Brothers or we get a Federal bailout Chrysler, the S @ L bailout, the Airlines after 9/11 (was that ever repaid) between 2 Bush Presidents 3? bailouts.
The Bank Bailout, the Airline bailout the S @ L bailout am I missing any
I’m thinking we can’t afford Jeb.