Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ten-Point Plan to Create REAL Jobs
#1
In light of Obama's speech last week, which was advertised as a "Jobs Speech", but really about reelection, the economic Liberian think tank, CEI(Competitive Enterprise Institute), has come up with a ten point recommendation, which would definitely promote the development of countless real jobs.

Here is an outline of the steps:

Quote:1. Repeal financial "reform" laws, such as Dodd-Frank and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that are causing economic uncertainty and dissuading businesses from expanding, investing and hiring for new projects.

2. Permanently withdraw proposed or recently finalized federal environmental regulations that are forcing existing power plants and energy-intensive industrial plants to close and blocking investment in new plants.

3. Reform federal labor laws to stimulate hiring in the private sector.

4. Unlock American natural resource production on federal lands and expedite environmental permitting of natural resource projects on federal, state and private lands.

5. Raise or eliminate the cap on credit unions lending to the small businesses of their members.

6. Freeze antitrust regulation.

7. Modernize America's intellectual property laws to reflect the industries and technologies of the 21st century.

8. End taxpayer subsidies for wasteful, inefficient "green" jobs.

9. Liberalize network and infrastructure industry regulation.

10. Streamline the visa process for highly-skilled immigrant workers in special occupations.

Is there anyone, other than the usual Union thug, or Collectivist ideologue, who can possibly disagree with these recommendations?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#2
There are the local liberals who would have apoplexy at such proposals. I talk to some of them every week. Or maybe they fit in your Collectivist ideologue category. Some of these people seem sincere and well meaning, even is ill informed or having subscribed to the quasi religions (emotionally) of the left.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#3
(09-13-2011, 05:47 PM)John L Wrote: In light of Obama's speech last week, which was advertised as a "Jobs Speech", but really about reelection, the economic Liberian think tank, CEI(Competitive Enterprise Institute), has come up with a ten point recommendation, which would definitely promote the development of countless real jobs.

Here is an outline of the steps:

Quote:1. Repeal financial "reform" laws, such as Dodd-Frank and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that are causing economic uncertainty and dissuading businesses from expanding, investing and hiring for new projects.

2. Permanently withdraw proposed or recently finalized federal environmental regulations that are forcing existing power plants and energy-intensive industrial plants to close and blocking investment in new plants.

3. Reform federal labor laws to stimulate hiring in the private sector.

4. Unlock American natural resource production on federal lands and expedite environmental permitting of natural resource projects on federal, state and private lands.

5. Raise or eliminate the cap on credit unions lending to the small businesses of their members.

6. Freeze antitrust regulation.

7. Modernize America's intellectual property laws to reflect the industries and technologies of the 21st century.

8. End taxpayer subsidies for wasteful, inefficient "green" jobs.

9. Liberalize network and infrastructure industry regulation.

10. Streamline the visa process for highly-skilled immigrant workers in special occupations.

Is there anyone, other than the usual Union thug, or Collectivist ideologue, who can possibly disagree with these recommendations?
1) I agree with to an extent. Some financial regulation is needed. Although a lot of the reforms in these 2 acts are heavy handed and could be done away with.

2) Negative externalities must be managed through regulation. The free market does not address them. Increased pollution results in greater profits for a single firm but has costs to society which are not born by the firm reaping the profits. Regulation is the only way to solve the issue. regulation must be sensible.

3) I don't know what this means. I don't think current labor laws have any significant impact on hiring.

4) We already do allow a lot of drilling and mining on federal land, but see my answer to #2. These things do have a cost and that cost needs to be accounted for.

5) Sure. I don't understand why there is a cap to begin with.

6) Freeze it? You mean leave it in place and don't change it? Monopolies are not efficient economically speaking. They artificially restrain output and increase prices at the detriment to society. We do need to manage that.

7) There are copyright and patent reform laws going in right now that do this, at least to some extent.

8) I agree to an extent. There are alot of subsidies which have very harmful effects, like ethanol for example. But I would not just eliminate all of them. There may very well be some good uses.

9) I don't know what this means. It lacks substance. Specifics please.


10) Yes. People should generally be allowed to go where they can be productive. yes we have a need to prevent terrorists and criminals from entering the country, but we should never make it really hard for someone who wants to be economically productive to come into the country.
Reply
#4
(09-15-2011, 10:21 AM)WickedLou9 Wrote: 1) I agree with to an extent. Some financial regulation is needed. Although a lot of the reforms in these 2 acts are heavy handed and could be done away with.

Lou, this is the same thing that practically everyone on the left has been saying for years, as though the right wants "zero" regulations. I challenge you to produce anyone, anyone, who is preaching for "zero" regulations. Anyone, who is in their right minds, that is.

This is a 'straw dog', because even the anarcho-Libertarians from the L.H.Rockwell crowd realize that there are some basic ground rules necessary. That is why the "Rule of Law" is so important to the right.

Please, just give me, your Classic Liberal friend John, one person who is preaching for no base ground rules?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#5
(09-15-2011, 11:09 AM)John L Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 10:21 AM)WickedLou9 Wrote: 1) I agree with to an extent. Some financial regulation is needed. Although a lot of the reforms in these 2 acts are heavy handed and could be done away with.

Lou, this is the same thing that practically everyone on the left has been saying for years, as though the right wants "zero" regulations. I challenge you to produce anyone, anyone, who is preaching for "zero" regulations. Anyone, who is in their right minds, that is.

This is a 'straw dog', because even the anarcho-Libertarians from the L.H.Rockwell crowd realize that there are some basic ground rules necessary. That is why the "Rule of Law" is so important to the right.

Please, just give me, your Classic Liberal friend John, one person who is preaching for no base ground rules?

I don't think you want zero regulation. But I would not get rid of those two acts in their entirety. Believe me, I work in that industry, I feel their impacts almost every day. In fact I basically can't invest money in the market because of these acts. technically I can, but the obstacles and costs are so high that there is no point. I can only use 2 or 3 approved brokerages services. I have to have a broker to make trades for me ( $$$), I can't buy anything without getting approval first which makes acting quickly pretty much impossible. These reforms have impacted me in a negative and very real way. At the same time, being in the financial industry, it really opens your eyes to the absolutely ludicrous complexity, and in some cases deception, that is involved and the very real need for regulation.
Reply
#6
For point #3 that Lou doesn't "get".

Lou, the current labor laws do have an impact on hiring within the private sector. Many jobs that are contracted out to private companies demand that you pay prevailing wage. That means you must pay your workers the exact same pay a union shop would be paying them if they were hired instead.

I also think you must abide by the coffee break and lunch break system, how many hours worked etc. These strangleholds really can limit a small company with less than 20 people on bidding on this kind of work. It's bad enough you have to bid the job low to begin with, then you're forced to pay prevailing wage if you can't afford it. Some of these wages are over $40/hour on construction union jobs!

OSHA regulations are to be followed as well. This means if you don't have certain bits of equipment not necessarily needed for the job (IE: hard hats on a fence job), or your workers are not wearing the proper OSHA mandated shoes, someone has to spend more money out of pocket for this as well. Eats into profits and negates the whole idea of landing the job.

That's the only example I can think of right now on what that will affect. The only reason I know this is because when I was married, my ex used to bid on city work all the time. He stopped after awhile because it was exasperating waiting to get paid (could take months after completion) and the out of pocket cost wasn't worth it. He paid his workers good, but a shop with less than 20 workers does not make enough to pay everyone $40/ hour to put up fences in suburbia.
[Image: PancakeBunny.jpg] I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head
Reply
#7
(09-15-2011, 11:26 AM)WickedLou9 Wrote: I don't think you want zero regulation. But I would not get rid of those two acts in their entirety. Believe me, I work in that industry, I feel their impacts almost every day. In fact I basically can't invest money in the market because of these acts. technically I can, but the obstacles and costs are so high that there is no point. I can only use 2 or 3 approved brokerages services. I have to have a broker to make trades for me ( $$$), I can't buy anything without getting approval first which makes acting quickly pretty much impossible. These reforms have impacted me in a negative and very real way. At the same time, being in the financial industry, it really opens your eyes to the absolutely ludicrous complexity, and in some cases deception, that is involved and the very real need for regulation.

Lou, that is the very reason why regulations should be short, precise, far reaching, and easy to understand.

If you have not read the US Constitution before, try to do so. The first thing you will note is that it is indeed 'short, precise, far reaching, and generally easy to understand'. And granted there are always many things that are misunderstood, it is the best road map out there.

Regulations, for financial industry, should also be the same. People know what is right, and what is wrong. If the perps possess larcenous hearts, they will always show themselves, and they will be punished. But changing the regulations, stacking one set on to others, and constantly trying to 'tweak' them, is counterproductive, in that those Not posessing a larcenous heart, are not able to know what they can and cannot do, without having the Feds come down on them.

This is why we Real Liberals constantly preach Responsible Individualism, Limited Government, Sanctity of Property Rights, and Free Trade. This does not require a European Complexity of Rules. And a much smaller, not bigger, government is the true answer.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#8
Many well-educated and thoughtful people have supported anarchy as a means of having commerce protected by common sense instead of coercion. In a true anarchy, the rule of law is driven by contract law, and reneging on a handshake agreement is the quickest way to one's own ostracism and commercial failure. In such a culture, where law is impacted most by market effects, there are always the con artists and criminals who eke out a niche for illegal activity and contract-breaking. In that well-founded anarchy, mercenary law enforcement is paid for out of results from contractual obligations originating from the bottom, not the top.

Such a concept is in the ideal, because too many people can confound the well-meaning few to make it work properly. The Constitutionally-limited republic of the U.S. is the closest thing to that ideal that I can imagine - but the same constraints and confounding exploiters cause the same problem. We need the media to spotlight those who transgress, and law enforcement must react objectively to crimes. Journalism, to a large degree, died a few years ago - although there are bright spots still remaining here and there that offer hope. Same thing with law enforcement. Too much bureaucracy has tied the hands of our protectors.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama's jobs Plan/speech:How it compares with facts John L 60 22,034 09-24-2011, 05:06 PM
Last Post: jt
  Jobs created vs jobs lost KenRI 16 7,932 01-14-2007, 11:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)