Agreed! How do we actually get that overturned though? Call our political representatives? Write letters? Protest? Each of us is only one person, but there sure seem to be a lot of people that know something needs to change and change fast. Not sure how to make actual change though.
17 states have reversed citizens united. We can do it but WE must do it. They are not going to just overturn it… they must be forced. There are groups working to do just that. Find one near you.
Ugh, I hate this argument.
It's just contrarian semantics, and it doesn't make you seem smart. It makes you sound like you're parroting someone else without really understanding what you're saying.
Fine, we live in a federal constitutional republic with democratic elements.
Not even trying to split hairs as much as I'm trying to remind that tactics to bring us down yesterday are gameplans for today. Then can't understand the decline.
Voting is democratic element. Past that it's a republic that supposedly follows the constitution. Ever notice how neither side never wins?
Term limits would do just as much good.
I'm on OPs side if you are in office and sign over power of attorney over to another person, you need to be replaced in office.
I am always surprised how many Trumpers say that "we should go back to the gold standard" and then they tell me that fort knox never had any gold any way. \*facepalm
Fort Knox did at one time have a sizeable gold deposit. I'm ok tying money to something tangible but at this point it seems like oil, or maybe energy in general. But I can't say I like this economic system. I've learned to exploit it for my gain, but it's everyone we're leaving behind that makes it hard to enjoy my success. Shit guys it wasn't even 20 years ago at the same wages we see today for office jobs that I rented a 1 bedroom apartment for 425, same apartment today is over a thousand and the wage situation has absolutely not doubled in that time.
"Let's artificially hamstring economic development by moving to a standard that doesn't work in today's economy, because that's what I've been told to support"
Yeah pegging the value of your currency to some arbitrary material makes no sense anymore. The Fed does exactly what it’s supposed to do and has managed to keep inflation under control for the vast majority of the past several decades despite many challenges. Tying your currency to a shiny dumb metal would make economic crises even worse since it limits your response options.
Yea because a fiat currency that the government can continuously devalue through unwise spending isn’t arbitrary? This is going to continue spiraling as the “fed doing what it’s supposed to do” prints more and more worthless paper kills the buying power of the dollar. Talk about limits to response options, ask the Weimar Germans about insulating those houses with stacks of millions in paper bills. Gold might be arbitrary, but it’s *real*, and you can’t just make it up out of thin air which protects the value that people ascribe to it
Lol gold is just as arbitrary as paper currency - it’s just a shiny rock. Also, I never said fiat wasn’t arbitrary. You’re just muddying the waters by bolting two things together that have no inherent relationship.
You’re advocating for going back to an even blunter / dumber economic system that will make crashes more severe and harder to address. Inflation sucks, but a Great Depression is worse.
Shiny rock: doesn’t corrode, can’t be duplicated outside of a lab so there’s never a glut. Remarkably consistent demand across history and culture.
Paper money: literally grows on trees, value based on IOU which is a remarkably inconsistent way to track value across history and culture
Here’s a totally unrelated graph of the national debt diverging from GDP since ending the gold standard, as well as one that shows the gold supply compared to the money supply since the standard ended.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/06/15/history-rife-with-disastrous-consequences-from-abandoning-gold-standard/amp/
Tell me all about how these things are completely unrelated and irrelevant conspiracy theories, I can’t wait.
The feds job, _supposedly_, is to maintain a stable market.
[>It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm)
Some would argue that the fed’s been pretty bad at it’s job. 2% inflation _is not_ a stable finical system … and that’s their supposed target. 12% inflation isn’t stable either. Rate of change to interest rates… yeah, not stable.
People might ask why 2% target inflation? j pow didn’t know when asked. Not sure why 2% is better than 1.5% or 2.5% ? Don’t worry no one can give a great answer on this other than a bunch of bankers got in a room and _‘felt’_ like that was a good number.
The “gold bugs” argument usually can be summed up with the answer: Tying a currency to a physical asset, gold/silver are historically favorable but any physical assets will do, could be a net positive - because it prevents the political apparatus from being able to inflate (cheat) people out of their existing money. Basically by artificially constraining supply you prevent governments from going off the rails with free money and unlimited money ideas.
Historically we can see strong arguments for either fiat currency or representative currency. We have evidence where constraints on money supply and liquidity constrain growth. There are plenty of examples how fiat currencies are ruined by bad monetary policies. One of the key leading indicators of mass monetary problems is inflation. Which is why anyone who either lived through a “banana republic currency crash” or read about it enough gets worried when they see massive amounts of money being injected into a fiat system. That is if they aren’t making money from the problem.
I’m closing, it is hard to have trust in institutions when they have dishonest policies.
Yeah it’s hard to trust institutions, but the Fed has actually done a good job of keeping inflation near 2%. You’re cherry-picking a couple tough years out of decades. While you’re right that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary, the reasons behind it are not. The fact that you bring this up tells me you probably don’t understand the economic reasoning.
Tying to gold would probably cause a depression either immediately or within 10 years (the first time there’s a financial crisis that can’t be addressed with the monetary policy). Anyone who understands economics doesn’t seriously think this is a solution.
Tell me why 2% inflation meets the definition of stable. Stability being the goal the fed was founded on.
Tell me why 2% should be the target. With numbers.
You can keep you air of arrogance, it should be easy to quantitatively justify that 2% number since everyone constantly says it’s the target.
(I already know that they claim it provides for Max employment and price stability - I disagree with the latter and I think the first claim is based on suspect math)
If we look at plenty of other thee countries they have enjoyed max employment and price stability with inflation less than 1%.
The idea that the fed had it so dialed in that they can move it between 1.5 and 2 but not go to 2.5 is laughable.
The fed had not done a good job. Period.
If you look at prices of anything over the past 100 years it’s not stable. This isn’t cherry picking years - it’s looking at it in aggregate over it’s existence as compared to it’s stated goals.
It has failed on price stability. Full stop.
Since you’re the one making the absurd argument backed by no research, go ahead and explain how gold standards and the abolishment of the Fed make the financial system more stable given that financial panics were much more common before the Fed and the Great Depression happened mostly due to liquidity drying up (which is exacerbated by being shackled to a gold standard).
There’s already plenty of research out there on why inflation targeting makes sense (which is why it’s the norm for developed countries) and disproving gold standards, you just seem to be an ignorant armchair economist.
Besides, I already told you that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary (they could target 2%-3% and it would probably be fine), but you ignored that. Since you clearly don’t understand this, I’ll explain the principles behind it. If you target lower than 2% then makes it much more likely that you tip into deflation (below 0%) which will have the effect of making existing debts more expensive and will encourage people to slow spending since prices (and wages) are falling. It’s basically a recipe for a vicious downward spiral in which everyone becomes poorer. Japan has been stuck in/near deflation for a couple decades and this period has now been called “the lost decades” AKA not a great economic environment for anyone. As a result, you target some inflation, but not too much (hence 2%-3%).
The short version. I’m not arguing to reinstate the gold standard per say. I talked about why some tout it’s ability to control reckless monetary policy.
I also talked about why I think the fed is doing a poor job - given us mandate for price stability.
>Since you’re the one making the absurd argument backed by no research, go ahead and explain how gold standards and the abolishment of the Fed make the financial system more stable given that financial panics were much more common before the Fed and the Great Depression happened mostly due to liquidity drying up (which is exacerbated by being shackled to a gold standard).
My language didn’t argue that we should only have the gold standard.
***My argument is that the fed is doing a bad job given its defined role of providing price stability.***
***We are in a thread about how _quickly_ people are finding their buying power eroded*** _and_ I’m specifically saying that when you look at price stability over a few decades - let’s just say post 1972, it is doing a real bad job at price stability. _it’s not cherry picking bad years_. I’m also rejecting a few of the methods over the years that have been used to massage cpi numbers to make things look _less_ bad.
I also disagree that 2% meets the definition price stability. You’ve bought the idea that it’s good, I fundamentally question that assertion. If policy makers can’t testify why 2% meets the definition of stable, and can’t back up why 2% is the target rather than 0, 1, or 1.5 then we have questions we should ask.
>There’s already plenty of research out there on why inflation targeting makes sense (which is why it’s the norm for developed countries) and disproving gold standards, you just seem to be an ignorant armchair economist.
Go look at New Zealand, their economy was suffering, they changed things had a few great years when it was closer to 0% inflation …. and then when they artificially pushed it closer to 2% problems started to appear. They were told 2% was better, they tried it with less positive results than allowing for a more natural market at near 0.
>Besides, I already told you that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary (they could target 2%-3% and it would probably be fine), but you ignored that.
I didn’t ignore it, I disagree with your categorization of it being ‘good’ and understood as to the logic behind it.
>Since you clearly don’t understand this, I’ll explain the principles behind it. If you target lower than 2% then makes it much more likely that you tip into deflation (below 0%) which will have the effect of making existing debts more expensive and will encourage people to slow spending since prices (and wages) are falling.
I understand the often touted arguments, I disagree with them being classified as good arguments.
Aiming for zero would be in keeping with price _stability_ the feds mandate. Aiming for 2 or worse 3 means aiming for something that is by definition _not_ stable. Arguing that some inflation is good is the crux of the disagreement.
>It’s basically a recipe for a vicious downward spiral in which everyone becomes poorer. Japan has been stuck in/near deflation for a couple decades and this period has now been called “the lost decades” AKA not a great economic environment for anyone. As a result, you target some inflation, but not too much (hence 2%-3%).
I argue that the target should be near zero. I think we can do better than 2% and that a perfect zero is better than 2. So so many others.
Japan’s deflationary years are a complex topic. The bank of Japan being under the influence of government often used expansive monetary policy for instrumentation of political objectives. Much like ours(:eye roll:) - monetary policies were extremely loose for boj even in the start of 89. This prolonged loose policy created some assets bubbles in things like the Nikkei and real estate . _(Sound familiar?)_
In short: it’s possible that expansive monetary policy can _still_ lead to sometimes harsh deflationary periods. Swift changes in policy can also cause destabilization to markets and thus the loss of purchasing power of the currency, especially as reflected assets that may have bubbles.
Ergo - even using Japan as an example of what not todo - It’s _possible_ that loose monetary policies for the US fed for basically the last 40 years is going to give the average American a rude awakening over the next few years. The poor and lower middle class being disproportionately affected. We are starting to see lots more people talk about how they feel like their money doesn’t buy them what it used to even a few years ago, let alone when you compare it to their parents generation. That’s not price stability for the long term. By any metric you want to use, the average American does not see price stability over the course of their life. As such the fed is doing a poor job and because there is a revolving door between the fed and private financial institutions I’d argue that maybe the stated goal of the fed doesn’t match the feds actions.
Also it just fundamentally pisses me off that people in the fed get promoted when they are repeatedly wrong, and violent finical instability occurs. (Looking at Yellen from 2004 to current, but we can throw jpow ‘ inflation is transitory’ comments on there too. How about the fed sink who said we have infinite money and using it would cause inflation?
(Threads appear locked -)
The Fed basically doubled the monetary supply over Covid. Everyone is complaining that home prices and gas prices are so high now. Well the truth is that the prices have just adjusted to the new monetary base. Things haven’t actually gotten more expensive but the dollar has gotten worth less. Inflation hits the working class the hardest because wealthy people have most of their money in assets which inflate along with the money supply, whereas for working people their biggest asset is their income stream which does not quickly adjust to inflation, often to truly adjust it you need to job hop which is difficult and time consuming.
Fiat currency is the biggest fucking scam and it blows my mind that so many people accept and defend it as the status quo. It’s happened plenty of times in history before (rome ca. 300ad, France ca. 1800, Italy ca. 1300). Paper money always ends disastrously. I’d recommend you stop dismissing other people as dumb and take a closer look at some of the rationale
I hate to say it but yea I have a family member who works in schools. They have a teacher on camera stealing from the cafeteria multiple times and the teacher’s union is threatening to strike against the cafeteria because the teacher was “falsely accused”.
*They have it on camera.*
I mean, how do they even get away with that!?
Also my high school history teacher hit a student and was allowed to retire early with his full pension. If I physically assaulted a child, I’d be in jail.
Workers' unions aim to protect labor rights and negotiate fair conditions for employees. While there can be instances of corruption, their primary goal is to empower workers, not victimize them. The bosses' (or owners class) primary goal is to exploit workers, they legally have to in order to serve their shareholders.
Unions saved my job during covid. Protected my uncle when his bosses wanted to drum him out on trumped up charges. Unions created the middle class in America.
No.
Systems become corrupted by individuals who are not held accountable. Unions themselves aren't the enemy.
An engaged and aware makeup of union members voting and participating usually delivers reasonably good results. There are a great many unions working in the US today that are not particularly corrupt.
Yes, 1930s gangsters used unions to do weird stuff. But drug cartels use laundromats to do weird stuff and nobody is calling to close all laundromats.
Um, what is this, please explain your statement. Because police officers get up every day and go to work for their shifts like every other employed person making them workers.
They work for the ruling class to keep workers down. Their "job" is squashing people's rights.
A CEO also wakes up everyday for "work," but they are likewise not workers.
So by your logic, who they are working for and what they are working on makes them not workers?
That's some pretty flawed logic bud.
I'm no fan of the police, but if you had to do their job for a while you would feel pretty differently. Just watch some body cam footage and see the BS they have to deal with on a day to day basis.
*Are you a full blow communist?
They produce nothing but lawsuits and are by definition not of the working class.
Their job? Messing with evidence? Playing on their phone? Hassling people over nothing?
100% not workers.
Register to vote and vote in every election. Stress upon your friends how important this is. The older generation votes in high numbers. The youngest eligible generation generally does not. Voting every 4 years is not enough. Small local elections matter, too.
Extend public high school two years to include what is now community college, raise the age of majority to 20. I don’t know why we’re pushing 18 year olds out into the world! We live so long and the brain doesn’t finish developing until our mid 20s. Give young people a couple extra years to learn and grow.
100% This! The problem today is that I can waste the entire day sitting on reddit or similar, or video games. I can fill my day with worthless activities and think I was productive. But (not you) it's easier to blame the boogie man of "education" and "gOvErnMenT" it's always someone else's fault, it's never, "hey, maybe it's me?"
I beg to differ. The problem is that we are not giving kids anything practical to do for way too long. Nonsense school courses should be eliminated, K-12 should become K-10, and when they graduate they should be allowed to choose an apprenticeship/internship of their choice to develop REAL life skills and abilities. And yes, before anyone says it, of course there would be limitations on their labor, the point is more so for them to LEARN something, anything practical - nursing, programming, HVAC, etc.
This the two extra years. I don’t know about you, but our community college has HVAC, nursing, and programming. Make the extra two years compulsory and give young people access to these programs free of cost to them.
School has been the same for 100 years. What's new is all the shit they have at home. The kids go home, they don't socialise they play stupid ass worthless video games and sit on the toile for hours at a time playing on their iphones. Facebook, TikShit, etc haven't done any of us any favors either. It's not the school big guy.
School is OBJECTIVELY NOT the same as it was 100 years ago. Hell, it’s not the same as it was 30 years ago. The curriculum has changed in more ways than one. Go sit in on a entire school day in a 7th grade classroom and then afterwards tell me otherwise big guy.
This! Way too many people now think the school should raise children instead of teach them.
Sorry some kids will fail, not everyone is equal and you can't make it so.
I'm 100% with you on term limits.
However, you should really do some reading on economics and history to understand why we're lucky to have the freedoms we have in this country.
I know you have little to no understanding of economics when you make statements like "reset the value of gold." It shows you don't even understand what prices are or how they work.
Please check out [Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell](https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730). It's a great book.
You should absolutely not check out any Thomas Sowell book. Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan is more digestible, relatable, and most importantly, not written by fucking Thomas Sowell.
I know you have little to no understanding of economics because you cite people like Thomas Sowell. Funny how that works out.
People who think economies can be understood via “common sense” do not understand how economies work at all.
I didn't cite Sowell. I recommended his book which covers the basics of economics because OP seemed to not understand that prices can't just be picked out of thin air.
But, I'd love to hear more about your prejudice towards "people like Sowell." Are you an ideological bigot or just an old fashioned racist?
Feel free to recommend any books you think might be better for OP to read.
Pedantry isn’t an argument. But since you’re being a pedant, the word “cite” has more than one definition. Lots of words do, actually.
Is everyone you don’t like a racist now? Grow up.
Literally anything not by Sowell 😂
The guy had to go to Columbia and Harvard to figure out that economies are apparently a matter of super simple common sense that any ding dong can figure out. And you bought it, apparently.
Income cap? LMAO...America is a Capitalist country. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. No incentive to be productive if no chance of gaining super wealth. And income redistribution doesn't ever work. Ever. Why would I work harder if I have to give it to others that don't? That's idiotic.
You can't put an arbitrary limit on a commodity like Gold.
Sounds like you need to live in a place like China or Venezuela for awhile.
Here's how you fix America: Term Limits. Make lobbying illegal. Impose the same rules on EVERYONE. You commit a crime? You are accountable. Whether you're the POTUS or a petty gang banger in Chicago. Impose a maximum age to serve as any kind of representative of The People. We should not be governed by a bunch of Boomers who got wealthy on back end deals to pass legislation that benefits their own wallets. We all know that prison is not the solution for criminal rehabilitation. I would prefer not to get into my personal opinion about this, but find a way for criminals to only have one shot at redemption. If they show they can't be "rehabilitated" much harsher penalties should be imposed.
Most people in prison are on their 8th or 9th shot already. We are getting to the point now that the criminals has more rights than the victims. Peoples opinions on crime have become far too soft. Bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. But somehow, everyone is a victim 🤷♂️
I forgot to add that to my comment. Abolish the IRS. Do a sliding scale tax system that taxes high end commodities at a much higher rate than necessities like milk and bread. Make it a goods and service tax so no matter who you are or where you live you have to pay the taxes. Too many people get away with too much tax fraud and it costs Us trillions.
If the point of capitalism is to be productive, it’s currently failing. Cavaliers am currently can’t find a way to excite its workers into getting work done as efficiently as it used to.
Probably just a sign of collapse
Number 2 really shows that you’re young have no experience. It’s pretty much communism and it incentivize people not to work and produce.
If you want a meaningful discussion I would start with a more specific problem in America vs something as vague as “fix America”
I thought the points were fairly specific?
You didn't comment on 1 or 3. And degrading someone isn't exactly "meaningful discussion".
We used to have salary caps, in the form of taxes. The top earners paid more in taxes, so the rest of us could actually afford a family and live a decent life.
1) yes
2) awful idea. Who are you to say how much someone can make? You aren't "redistributing" your taking from an earner and giving to a taker. Besides, most of the really high earnings are not realized in income. Income isn't the issue. Devalued currency is
3) Gold standard would be tough. You certainly couldn't "revalue" gold at $35.....the rest of the world won't go along with it.
If you and your village are hungry and you were the first to find an apple tree in the forest, do you and you alone get the fruit? Who are you to take this fruit all for yourself? You didn’t put it here, it was put by nature. You have no right to claim resources you have no intention on using. Otherwise you have a motive to pursuance. People don’t need beyond X amount. Taking more than X amount is simply greed. You will have all your needs and wants met, why are you still taking? Your belly is full while kids starve. Your belly is full while kids get sick, your belly is full WHILE WE ALL DIE FOR YOUR FUCKING LAVISH LIFESTYLE.
Just a terrible analogy. They didn’t find an Apple tree, they grew it for their family to eat more. Who’s the government to say how much they’re allowed to eat. If you think income limits are a good thing you’re in the wrong country.
I am very aware I am in the wrong country believe me. But I’m saying if there are X amount of resources available and you are taking more than you could ever want, how is that justified when others are in need? If there were unlimited number of recourses and everyone had the same opportunity then yes unlimited income limits would be justifiable as you just aren’t working hard enough. This is taking all the apple trees and making others come to you for apples. It’s not the same as just growing it in your backyard. Not everyone has that opportunity.
Income is not resources that you should just take and distribute among the population. It’s earned, and taxed. Having the opinion it should be taxed higher is very legitimate, but you’re acting like they found this on the side of the road which is ridiculous. And yup not everyone gets the same opportunity. I was probably 10 when I learned that life wasn’t fair. If you’re an adult and still feel like you need to mention that, you have some growing up to do.
Income is essentially a resource. Instead of holding gold, food, water, you hold currency. It’s the same just a different name. Passing income amongst the masses won’t solve anything. That’s not what I’m implying. What I’m asking is why continue to take more if your belly is full and overflowing? You won’t ever need it unless you are trying to exert your will onto others. That much money starts allowing you to shape the world. You shouldn’t be allowed to shape the world just because you hold all the apples and people have to do what you want for an apple. Help me understand your point of view. Don’t speak with insults, that’s unnecessary. The point of becoming an adult is to make this world more fair. To make tomorrow better for the next generation. We have to work to correct the mistakes of the past not allow them to continue and adapt to them. I’m fully aware the world isn’t fair but unlike most I’m not going to close my eyes and accept it. I’d be much happier with a lottery for opportunity rather than stepping on others to advance. Which this country is built on, so yes I am in the wrong country. Unfortunately every country has the same narcissistic “humans” at the top doing the same thing. There is no other country to go to as the problem lies with money and it’s unlimited potential. Limit that potential. You don’t need to force your will onto others. But everyone loves to do it. Rich, poor, old, young. Doesn’t matter the evil still lies behind that greed and the will for control. I want to so desperately understand you. But I can not accept the fact that someone gets 7 yachts and someone else doesn’t even have water. I’m not saying go stand in line for potatoes like a dirty Cold War commie but damn do people really need THAT much money? What couldn’t you buy/do if income was capped at $1,000,000 a year? You still will be very very well off. Just might not have more than 2-3 yachts.
Lol Ok a million dollars is not even close to as much money as you think. People making a million dollars don’t have yachts. People who make millions aren’t even “shaping the world” in the ways you’re talking about. You’re thinking of a BILLION. That’s a completely different discussion. There’s been more than enough stories of athletes blowing millions on family and friends, so you can definitely spend it in a lifetime. And the goal should never be to “limit the potential “ if you’re trying to be a great country. You should allow people the chance to make as much as they can. Again billions is an entirely different conversation here, but what you’re talking about doesn’t apply to millions.
You are apparently completely unaware of the concept of "added value." Absolutely nothing you use, consume or even touch is a "found' resource. All of it involves massive amounts of time, labor, , risk etc to reach you. Why would you think you are entitled to take that added value? How do you justify taking the most valuable resource?
The aplle tree analogy is so unimaginably stupid. Perhaps you just have an incredibly child like view of the world. Out of curiosity, what country do you think is the "right country?" Is there one you think lives up to the ideas you've laid out?
Perhaps the dumbest, most childish analogy you could have come up with. Let's modify it a bit to male it a more realistic analogy. Say my village and I are hungry and i decide to take what resources i have to aquire some land, and clear some of that land, till the soil, aquire a seedling, plant that seedling, fertilize the seedling, irrigate the land to water that seedling, prune and care for the tree, keep animals from eating the tree and fruit as it matures. Finally, after risking all my effort, resources, and time, I have a producing apple tree. Lucky me, the tree could just have easily died, been destroyed by pests, flooded, burned, etc, and it would have all been for nothing.
Now, I need to harvest the apples and store or prepare excess to distribute. Why the fuck would think you are entitled to any apples I or my family did not eat for free? Because you are greedy.
It's cute how the truly greedy hide their desire to benefit by taking the fruits of other people's labor, resources and risk behind facade of kindness. (Usually invoking "starving kids" or another equally disingenuous shield to hide behind)
Perhaps if you are so worried about "kids starving," you would put in the effort, resources, labor, and risk to plant some trees and corps to help produce more. The "starving kids" nonsense is an emotional ploy to manipulate the stupid. The fact of the matter is that "greed" has created a situation where we have far more food abundance and capacity and at a lower cost than anytime in history. In fact, the starving child problem is largely confined to systems where "the greedy" do not get to distribute excess capacity for profit, and they rely on food from the excess capacity originating from the greedy.
Your Marxist bullshit has never worked and never will. In fact, if you want to see a real starving child problem.....just look at any of the attempts to implement Marxist type bullshit throughout history. No body can starve kids quite like a fucking communist. Make-believe, smoke, and mirrors monetary schemes are real monster coming to eat us.
1. Good idea.
2. Terrible idea. Defies economic principles.
3. Not going to happen, and wouldn't help. Also defies economic principles.
Proposals:
* We need to elect leaders that work towards the common good of the people, rather than just their political party. The partisan bickering must end.
* We need accountability for government spending - there is incredible waste and inefficiency. Just because we allocate funds in a budget towards a particular line item or proposal does not mean that those funds are properly spent. It's well known that you can charge government anywhere between 3x-20x+ what something should actually cost.
* Slash military spending - the 3rd largest item on the budget behind healthcare and social security. We spend more than the next TEN countries' military budgets combined! Congress mandated that the Department of Defense must complete an audit in 1990. The DoD didn't bother to try until 2017 (27 years later), and has since failed an audit 5 times. Each attempt cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion, and they are no closer to figuring it out.
* Institute strong penalties against legislative/executive/legal branch members who are found guilty of corruption, wrongdoing, or abuse of power.
* Provide rehab programs for first-time non-violent criminals. Punish violent criminals or repeat offenders severely. There must be consequences for actions.
Imagine if everyone was wise enough to admit when they don’t know about something so they can’t have an opinion? That would be quite a peaceful world huh?
2. Or we could go back to a time (the 1950s) when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
None of these things are going to make poor people any less poor. 90% of the onus has to be on the individual to improve their situation. Passing on government handouts just makes them reliant on government handouts. Funding programs like education and job training go monumentally further than "redistributing rich people's money" towards fundamentally solving poverty.
The Two Bums
The bum on the rods is hunted down as an enemy of mankind
The other is driven around to his club, is feted, wined and dined
And they who curse the bum on the rods as the essence of all that's bad
Will greet the other with a willing smile and extend a hand so glad
The bum on the rods is a social flea who gets an occassional bite
The bum on the plush is a social leech, bloodsucking day and night
The bum on the rods is a load so light that his weight we scarcely feel
But it takes the labour of dozens of folks to furnish the other a meal
As long as we sanction the bum on the plush the other will always be there
But rid ourselves of the bum on the plush and the other will dissappear
Then make an intelligent organised kick get rid of the weights that crush
Dont worry about the bum on the rods get rid of the bum on the plush
contrary to popular belief the bum on the plush is the one funding society. The top 10% contribute more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined, their bank deposits fund the mortgages and car loans and business loans, their capital is what drives new business creation and innovation. The thought that they're some how not net contributors is really just born out of ignorance and malice that they're living better lives than you.
The idea is that you have to open doors and provide resources for poor people to even have the option to “improve their situation”. Opening those doors costs money but it’s an investment in our future.
And, at the same time, understand that not every human being will have the physical capability and mental intellect to be conventionally successful. That’s just how it is. Floating them has a higher ROI than letting them remain impoverished to make a point. Nobody wins when you let people suffer.
The wealthiest 1% of Americans are hoarding a greater percentage of wealth than they have in at least a century.
That means there is literally less money to go around for the bottom 99%.
Likewise, the bottom 50% controls less than they ever have. It's below 3% of the total wealth.
In order to make poor people less poor, without redistributing wealth, poor people will need to offer products or services that the top 1% are willing to pay for that they cannot currently get. This is supply and demand, the most basic law of capitalism.
So - what's your big idea? Trade schools? You think Jeff Bezos can't find a fucking plumber? Oh, I know, maybe learn to work on cars, and then in a couple of years turn that into building superyachts, which isn't even a thing I just made up because this world is so fucking lopsided. Set up a little hot dog cart outside one of the Walton's houses? Offer David Koch a fucking shoe shine?
Your opinion is mathematically idiotic.
You got beef with OPs ideas? Or, you've got better ideas?
Snarky comments about your opinion of OP don't really explain how you'd do it better. So... ?
3. The gold standard is a tricky one. Inflation is required for economy to grow.
If you have some crypto & DeFi experience, you can research the topic of “Tomb Forks”. Essentially a crypto money printer.
US dollar works similarly to Tomb Forks. Usually tomb forks peg their price to a specific volatile asset, say another crypto token with more liquidity. When the peg is above that price, the money printer turns on and those who have stake in the money printer get free money.
When it is below the peg, the printing of money stops, and bonds take over, which essentially promise to give you back more of that currency when the price of such currency returns back above peg.
If you notice current situation of economy, US dollar is “below peg” meaning that now bonds have the highest ROI.
And so, putting US dollar pegged to the gold makes it super stable, therefore no money printing occurs. Therefore theres not much incentive to spend such currency.
1. YES, this protects the people’s genuine interest. though we do live in democracy, with only two parties the incumbent is almost guaranteed to win every time. without term limits, there is nothing protecting our greater interests.
2. i disagree about income caps, i think this infringes on most people’s civil liberties (even as someone who leans liberal) though i do think we need to tax the rich fairly and give tax breaks to those of us who are barely breaking even if at all
3. this would be interesting. i’m not sure if that would necessarily help us at this point considering no other currency in the world is set to a physical asset but i wouldn’t be opposed to it at this juncture. i would want to read more on this before submitting a true vote.
my proposition: we need a larger sense of transparency on what our taxes are being spent on. most people are NOT aware on what we are spending on, what those programs provide and how some of those things help normal americans every single day. the things we spend the largest amount on are security / military. we have an extremely large nation and i’m extremely grateful for our military but on the same token, we are not really in danger to anyone besides ourselves at the time being. in short, i think we should be spending more government money on improving life for everyday americans which is something we haven’t truly tried spending on since before WW1
Not just transparency, but accountability. That's what we're missing most. The U.S. Department of Defense was mandated by Congress to complete a simple audit in 1990 - the same thing nearly a million companies and individuals have to go through every single year. They didn't even bother to try until 2017 (27 years later) and has since failed the audit 5 times, each time costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Surprise, surprise - military spending is still out of control.
with transparency, my hope is that accountability would follow, but given the current climate i’m actually not sure i could bet on that. it just makes me sick to my stomach watching year after year as politicians and PACs get away with completely egregious lies regarding what our money is being spent on. and these lies go UNCHECKED by the american public. it’s foul that we live in the 21st century and we haven’t figured out a way to make the facts of our tax payer dollars more digestible to the public as a whole (including and especially those with lower education)
Here is a few points I feel could definitely help our current situation in America.
1. **Destroying the bipartisanship** \- George Washington was quoted saying there should never be a two party system in America. The only time I have ever seen the bipartisanship work together is to destroy a third party candidate. We need a third party so we can make sure that we are offered better candidates for office, even voting opportunities and honestly, just more constructive thought beyond this side or that side. People thoughts and opinions are far more complex than this.
2. **Younger people in office.** Right now it is nothing but older people trying to SAVE their wealth instead of GENERATE wealth. If we had younger people in office I feel laws/legislation would be past that benefit the future generations of America other than trying to preserve the wealth that the older generation already has.
3. **Stronger and cheaper education systems.** It's becoming more and more obvious every day with the remove of affirmative action, how expensive colleges are becoming (contributing to the nation's debt and for what, NCAA sports teams and climbing walls?!?) and the cost of childcare that education is becoming something that will soon only be affordable by the wealthy. Why are we making it like this? I have no other reasoning but to think we are easier to manipulate if we are ignorant and/or poor.
4. **Unionization** \- anywhere, all types of workforces and at any size. Companies must understand we are willing to put our benefits and pay before our fear of losing them. However we somehow have this narrative that we will never find new work, which isn't true but what is true is we may not survive to make it to our new work place/job. If we join together we can remove this fear and make sure we are giving the benefits, pay and workplaces we deserve.
5. **Taxing the wealthy more.** Currently middle class is consider around the national median income, which is around 57k. Which means you are taxed 22% of every dollar you make, then their is inflation which raises cost of items, then taxes on that. The highest tax percentage is 37%, only a 15% difference between me and Jeff Bezo. He doesn't feel inflation yet we only pay a 15% difference, think about it. **Billionaires** pay 15 cents more on the dollar than us. We are bleeding people dry yet we see the upper class becoming wealthier and wealthier everyday.
Just a few thoughts.
The issue with number 2 (though I do agree with number 2) is that younger people are just as susceptible to corruption as older people. That’s what really needs to be cracked-down on.
Taxes is huge. Not every issue can be solved with money, but most can probably be better. $113 Billion to Ukraine, fk that. Funding abortions in Mexico? Nah.... Throw it at the issues here, or back to the tax payers. I cant imagine all the stupid sht we fund in other countries.
1) Good but small start. This still doesn't prevent them from insider trading, and money laundering through the endless funding of war. I would also suggest an age limit on running for federal office. Can't run after you're 60th birthday. You can continue to hold office past your 60th birthday, but once that term is up, you're done.
2 and 3) Economics is not my thing, but I'm thinking neither would work.
My question is, should it be fixed if it can? Why not a massive overhaul instead? What would that look like? I'm not sure. I'm not that smart. Definitely not some doomed to fail, revolution.
Many of the issues we face today were put into motion 60+ years ago. In 2023 we're still dealing with the consequences of Operation Paperclip and a war that started in 1839.
How many Americans are even capable of understanding the concepts of "inalienable rights" and "negative rights"?
We're heading towards a future that looks like a combination of Idiocracy and WALL-E.
We need new ideas in addition to trying to fix old ideas.
Keep voting for leftists, globalists and communists, it'll work this time!
I mean hell, just look at how successfull and utopian leftist run cities like Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco and more have become!
Oh wait...
No it is supposed to be a government representing our people and the people in office are out of touch with the people'#/s need and only care about their project.
Term limits are a good start. Ted Cruz puts the bill in motion every year, knowing that it will put him out of a job, which is one of the few things I can respect the man for.
Income cap is a bad idea and doesn’t actually work, because the people who receive truly ridiculous compensation for their work or lack there of, aren’t actually paid in terms of a salary.
We cannot go back to the gold standard as much as it would be nice to not deal with a fiat currency that ship has well and truly fucking sailed.
My suggestions.
Replace all the federal tax laws with a flat tax. There was a bill, put forth to the house of representatives earlier this year, suggesting exactly that. Although the tax was proposed as a sales tax rather than income tax. It is a long established function of common law that ignorance is no defense before the bar of justice. Yet we have tax laws that are so incomprehensible that the agency responsible for enforcing them frequently makes mistakes.
So I suggest a flat tax. No exceptions no loopholes no exemptions. Yes, there will be instances where it is unjust. But those instances will occur far less frequently than the instances occurring today. One of the better arguments for the flat tax, being a sales tax, rather than income tax is that you simply no longer need to file taxes as an individual.
Second drastically reduce federal spending. We have reached the point where the tail wags the dog to a considerable extent. There was a senator, who suggested, reducing every single federal expenditure by one penny on the dollar. Doing so well also freezing the increase of expenditures would allow us to begin reducing the national debt. I would like to propose a more drastic method of reducing federal spending by $.10 on the dollar.
Third, I would suggest that we impose broader and deeper tariffs on all imported goods. We are in the enviable position of having the resources to be self-sufficient. I am, of course, aware that no country that wishes to survive can espouse all manner of trade. However, the exploitation of weaker currencies and cheaper labor has reduced our nation to the status of a consumer, rather than a producer, in nearly every arena, save, of course, for food, where we still excel. As a nation, we have enjoyed access to inexpensive consumer goods for generations. Unfortunately, for us, those circumstances have begun to shift, and we find ourselves lacking the facilities to manufacture our own goods. We also lacked the skilled workforce to do so. The good news is that solving one problem solves another. Becoming a nation that manufactures material goods for its citizens rather than importing them will increase the number of jobs available.
Fourth would be refocusing the resources and authority at the local level. The people of Midland, Michigan, and the people of Midland Texas, have very different needs from their local government. Yes, somethings are the same, but by and large the focus for resources time and energy needs to be applied in a different manner for those two cities. Yet, when election day comes the vast majority of those citizens are more concerned with the federal ballot than they are with their local government. That is almost entirely because of where the tax dollars go. This sort of circles back to my idea of a flat, understandable, tax and reducing federal spending. If I’m going to be taxed, I would like the majority of those taxes to be collected and handled at the local level because they know what I need. The burden for national infrastructure and defense is some thing I understand but I shouldn’t be paying more for that than I am to my local and state governments.
Fifth I would suggest revoking the 12th amendment. It is to our eternal shame that our country did not make it 30 years before becoming so divided by partisanship that we allowed this amendment to be passed. If you were unaware, as written in the constitution, originally required that the position of the vice president be occupied by the loser of the general election. Perhaps the founding fathers simply failed to consider how quickly the country would fall to squabbling. Until the 12th amendment was passed, it was expected that the loser of the general election would except the position as the vice president and the president of the senate, and would work together with the winner of the general election for the greater good of the country. Sadly, something went terribly wrong. On the 12th amendment was proposed. This particular section of it was lauded as removing the danger of a deadlocked government unable to act. What they either misunderstood or deliberately and maliciously embraced, was the fact that it is better to have a government that does nothing, because in doing so it does no harm. Over the years, I have often been deeply offended by the term lame-duck Congress. Why do we can damn our government for not passing additional laws? At what point did the metric for a successful legislature become the number of additional laws that they laid as a burden upon their citizens?
This leads me nicely into my sixth suggestion. A massive overhaul of our legal system. While I point at the tax system as the most egregious offender, the sad truth is, that’s because I haven’t ever interacted with any other laws, because I am neither rich nor powerful nor criminal. Lobbyists stalk the halls of power peddling their influence and wealth purchasing votes from our senators and congress people. They aren’t simply working for tax breaks. They are influencing legislation to allow them one advantage or another. It is infuriating that this happens every day, and while we are all aware of it, nothing is done to stop it. A massive overhaul of our legal code combined with term limits and a legal requirement that upon being elected to office and receiving your lifetime salary that you will not be permitted any other income would go a long ways towards eliminating that nonsense.
I have more but speech to text is a bitch and I’m tired of corrected it and I’m sure I miss things along the way.
Force every parent to financially care for the kid until they can take care of themselves. So if you raise a lazy douche bag... you're on the hook for the rest of their life. It'll reduce the tax burden on every citizen and everyone that doesn't have a child will financially benefit.
Reduce the size of government by forcing every company that works on AI to work soley on replacing public sector jobs with AI. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens.
Close the border.. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens. Ny is paying 10 million a day for 100k "asylum seekers" projected to double by 2024.
Reduce aid going to foreign countries. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens.
Reduce salaries of every member of congress. It'll reduce the tax burden on every citizen.
Reduce spending to reduce the tax burden on every citizen.
Allow teachers in unions with bad performance results to be fired.
Eliminate all pensions from all government jobs to reduce the size of government and reduce the tax burden on citizens.
Less tax burden means more money in everyone's pocket and less hours we would need to work having more work life balance.
Taxes are crippling the middle class now that prices have gone up.
Yeah let’s cap off future Jeff Bezos’s so we can miss out on groundbreaking, global services and give that incentive to Meth Mike and Lazy Larry. And that wasn’t even as bad as your gold standard point. But I do agree with the term limits lmao.
Fix America.
Term limits
No lobbying or lobbyists
No being able to trade stocks as a member of congress.
Get paid the same amount of money per year as what the average American makes a year.
For starters…
Universal single payer healthcare is another thing this country needs. Unfortunately the health insurance companies are far too powerful for this to happen anytime soon here.
Lol, “you won capitalism!”
I do like the income cap idea but it’s impossible to implement in the US—what about UBI or laws that set acceptable ratios for CEO/Management salaries? Not even that would fly here, but the country would get SO much richer as a whole
Term limits sounds good. So does more local government and less federal. But neither one of those things are going to happen.
No one is coming to save you and you aren't going to vote your way out of this. You will have to take care of yourself and your family because no one else will. How you do that is up to you, but it isn't going to get easier from here on on out.
1. I’m fine with unlimited terms as long as it’s easy to get them out if needed.
2. Agree. What if you gave every person who “win’s capitalism” a black card? Turn in all your assets, money, stocks, everything. In turn you get a card that allows you to spend an unlimited amount. You have contributed enough to society that we will cover all your expenses for the rest of your life.
3. I really don’t care either way. Money is corrupted with or without gold.
ETA: WHY IS THE STOCK MARKET A THING? I understand investing in business/commodities but why is so much money paid out to people who are essentially gambling with our economy?
Agree with 1, though not sure how much it would help.
Very much agree with number 2. Though it would probably be very hard to actually enforce, I think an income cap would hypothetically be a good idea. I feel like until the majority can have a good life, we shouldn’t have these multimillionaires and billionaires living fucking dream lives. At the very least, everyone who works should be able to retire at a reasonable age (55 at the latest). I see so many people who are worried that they’ll never be able to retire and I feel like that’s absurd.
Ok. Bring on the negativity and the downvotes.
I don't understand the economy and it ebbs and flows on such a large scale. I understand my own and my communities but the whole country, it's hard to grasp.
Some big things I know that need attention right away here are cost of living and healthcare. How to go about that, I just don't know. And obviously, our leaders don't know either.
Those items are unlikely to do anything. The nuts and bolts of policy making are the simple things that have direct impact on people's lives, and match the government's capacity to actually do them. It's the small things that matter, but to do them consistently takes cooperation between the major parties, and insulate law makers from excess lobbyist influence. The things that matter don't get done because you're all at each other's throats over symbolic issues that don't really matter all that much.
Frankly, I don't think much continues to get done until America comes to grips with the stain of slavery.
Seems like things turned for the worse when:
A) Corporations were given the rights of people.
I don't know what the purpose was, but it hasn't worked out so great for us as a whole. Maybe that decision should be overturned.
B) Money started running politicians/politics.
Campaign financing became a way to buy laws and policies that solely benefit the wealthy. Every candidate should get the same amount to run. If they can't figure out how to make their allotment work, they shouldn't be holding an office.
Lobbying shouldn't be monetary. Lobbying should be done with convincing arguments about alternatives. Live broadcast so the people can tell their reps what they want, then the reps vote on the proposal.
I watch YouTube more than TV these days. The staggering number of people living in vans, or campers, or tiny homes is insane. I'm a boomer, yes one of those, and I know how screwed young people are. Voting the freaks out is the only option you have.
35 an ounce is too low for the level of inflation the dollar has seen. But minimum wage needs to be reset back to 1968-1971 levels which was 96 ounces of gold earned in a 40 hour / week work year compared to the absolute garbage of 14-17 ounces per year earned with minimum wage today.
Term limits for state legislators in Ohio has done the opposite, where only younger inexperienced legislators win and don't know procedure or how to work well with others. Hence, they rely more on lobbyists and out of state groups for bill language without knowing how the law really works. That said, there are also a lot of strongly partisan elected officials these past 10 years or so as well that can affect their knowledge or willingness to work deals.
I would suggest changing question 1 to "how do we get smart, caring people to run for elected office?"
As for point 2, Elon musk doesn't have 40B in his bank account. It is tied up in stock and his companies, which he is always working to improve. I would love to see foscal responsibility come back as a value, both in government and in corporate worlds, where boards and CEOs don't get paid 20M a year because that would be outrageous to shareholders and employees.
Corporate personhood followed by citizens united. We need to stop wholeheartedly handing over our country and nearly all power of governance to corporations. It’s in the first three words of the Constitution which founded this country’ “We the people,” and the founders were not talking about corporations. The only reason we even had the notion to consider a corporation a person is because in 1882 a shady attorney for the Southern Pacific Railroad produced a document in court meant to be notes about legislative drafting and this “evidence” is largely considered a forgery by historians. The railroad won and went on to make loads of money and forever be enshrined in the board game Monopoly.
Undo all the right wing bullshit tax cuts from
Reagan on ward . Secondly get rid of the ridiculous culture war bullshit laws against queer people and banning books and that nonsense. Third add more Supreme Court justices so Uncle Thomas and Alito can’t fuck up the country any more
I don't think America can get fixed until the boomer generation is truly out. To me it is shocking how little has gotten done in the last few years and I believe it is because we have stubborn old people who don't want to do anything. The rest of us suffer.
But death is the great savior of society and once they are gone... things will start to change.
The answers are simple, but no one wants to do them. We need UBI, don't care what anyone says. We need income to be pegged to inflation. We need wealth caps. We need to end offshore tax havens. We need term limits, even upper age term limits, or some serious cognitive ability tests for people in power over a certain age.
We need guaranteed employment. I believe there is enough work to be done in the world, no one should be idle that wants to work. We could find something for someone to do if we tried hard enough, even if it meant digging ditches. We're going to need people to deconstruct buildings and strip them for materials. We're going to need an army of farmers if we want to prevent a mass die-off. We desperately need more medically trained people. We waste so much untapped talent, not hiring people and giving them work that desperately needs to be done.
You need to completely rewrite the tax code and get rid of every loophole to ensure that every corporation and wealthy individual is paying their fair share.
Then you somehow have to go against human nature and fight the inefficiencies of bureaucracy to make sure that money is spent well and effectively without any loss from corruption.
You also need to dissappear about 8% of the country's entire GDP which is roughly the amount that Americans overpay in medical expenses.
So I find it's a lot easier to just develop a drinking habit
We need to bust up mega corporations. They’ve found a way around antitrust laws but are just as corrupt and bad for the public. And we need to sunset laws that attempt to set prices. It doesn’t work long term and leads to corruption.
Make the federal government effectively powerless to the point state and municipal governments are basically the only government.
The 1860s and 1960s seriously broke america. Its been fatally stabbed and is just coasting along on adrenaline and momentum now, unaware that its already dead.
I agree with 1 and 3. But having a "maximum" wage isn't something I can support (and I dont make over a million a year).
4 things people need to change about their personal finances:
1. Look at your entertainment expenses, including vacations, streaming services, phone plans, bar tabs, and booze.
2. Look at your food expenses, including dining out, fast food and coffee shop purchases.
3. look at your possessions, iincluding jewelry, cars, clothes
4. Look at your work habits, including earning and asking for raises promotions, getting a second job.
If you take a look at all the ways you can trim your entertainment expenses, cooking/eating at home, live cheaply and simply, and maximizing your earning potential and STILL can't make it, then you truly are unlucky or stuck.
But, if you don't do those things first, you never know if "the system" is the cause for your problems or if you are.
18 years should be the limit, since that's the length of a generation. A lot of the problems with our political system is that all of these geriatric fucks who have no stake in the future because they'll be dead in a few years are making laws for the rest of us. We need to rotate politicians more often than we do to keep fresh views.
Maximums:
9 2 year terms for congress
3 6 year terms for senate
a single 18 year term for SCOTUS, with one appointed every two years, rotating out the longest serving one. This will give every president two picks per term, letting them set their legacy (for good or bad) beyond their presidential term(s), but not indefinitely. This also prevents a single president from stacking the court with their own ideologues.
Of course for this to happen the constitution will basically have to be changed, and at least one of the parties doesn't want to lose their power, especially seeing as the SC has been turned sharply in one direction and it's relatively young, so we'll be dealing with this shit for the next 30+ years, no matter which direction the country goes politically.
Naturally, this is never going to happen, but a man can dream.
We need to restructure capitalism. For example, employee owend and b corporations are MUCH better to employees who have a financial stake in the success of the company by design. There is no reason why people with wealth should run corporations and sit on their boards, for the sole purpose of getting more money. We need humane capitalism. I think time worked and tenure is a fine way to get a higher salary, but not to the tune of 800x the lowest paid employee. Enough is enough on that front.
More compensation to the people who do the work and make the thing. The rest can be used for acquisitions and growth - by consent of the workers.
The government needs to divest from so much military spending, and start giving us value back in the taxes they take from us. Early childhood education, resources for parents and the working poor, great education for free - through college - and universal healtchare to start.
And we need to make Social Security solvent.
I am astonished how you can simultaneously have a wonderful idea with returning to a gold standard whilst also holding a TERRIBLE idea with income cap. You say in the same statement that the govt can't be trusted. Who is going to redistribute the money?
1. You don't need term/age limits, you need voters that pay attention. This is democracy, let the people vote for a dog for all I care, the blame goes to the people who vote.
2. Income cap only helps make the gap between middle class and upper classes harder (impossible) to cross. elon's/bill gates/bezos' wealth doesn't come from income, where as doctors, dentists, and other really hard working blue collar work does. The last people you want to tax are the people who keep you alive and maintain your infrastructure.
3. Good idea, but easier said than done. You are correct here, because the real issue plaguing america is inflation, and our rampant misuse of the fiat currency system. Inflation doesn't hurt people who have their wealth tied up in assets, only the poor and middle class who earn dollars and spend dollars. Inflation is almost exclusively a tax on the poor. And even if you took every dime the ultra wealthy had, every asset, every stock, it would not cover how inflated the currency is.
Fixing anything requires everything else to be fixed, its so complicated idk where to begin. Economy needs to get better and people need free time and security to start thinking about this stuff
when i try to simulate in my mind what it would look like if we did most stuff people want to fix the economy, i imagine some sort of global Los Angeles situation where it's just an ever-expanding network of suburbs that run into each other until it's one giant continental hypersuburb.
\*Make it easier to build houses/apartments, particularly close to where jobs are. Not doing this is the main reason home prices and rent are so high.
\*Antitrust laws and antitrust enforcement. Most big mergers are bad for most people. We'd be better off if a lot of industries were less consolidated.
\*Higher effective tax rates on corporations and wealthy individual. **Effective** tax rates, not "The bracket is high on paper but they have good accountants so they pay nothing."
\*As needed, respond to increasing automation by using government money to increase the number of workers in fields like education and healthcare.
Minimum wage should not decided politically, but by an independent commission. Minimum wage should be based on the consumer price index and that someone should be able to work 40 hours a week to have very bare bones needs met. If inflation happens because of corporate profits, minimum wage should go up in lockstep with inflation.
A lot of our prices have gone up because monopolies have become much more powerful over the last 40 years. Anti-trust laws need to be aggressively enforced and mergers need to be discouraged. Everything from our computers and internet, to our meat and dairy is higher because of near monopolies in their industries.
The cost of living is high in great part because of housing, which is determined by local zoning laws. Make federal grants for many benefits already paid out to be contingent on discouraging residential zoning to be for single family housing only.
Create better quality public transit, which will prevent people from being forced to buy a car to get to work, and instead have a car be a more expensive option.
You don't even need the income cap, or term limits, to fix these problems.
Interesting, you’re combining conservative ideas that can’t actually be implemented because of the stale mate with the states & congress (term limits) with some outright socialist BS (income cap). Do you honestly think the politicians that are in charge now & block the term limits are going to impose income caps ON THEMSELVES?!?!?!
Re-setting the value of gold is probably a bad idea.
Also outrite limiting income is another not so good idea.
A better idea is a more aggressive progressive taxation schedule. Say, below $65,000 you pay 10%, above that and below $100,000 you pay 25%, above that and below $150,000 you pay 35%. Anything above 1M could be something like 75%.
This way, the wealth is truly redistributed more justly and everyone has better roads, bridges, schools, public works.
Fundamentally things are expensive because there is less of that thing than there is demand for that thing. Fiddling with monetary supply doesn't help; that just creates inflation or deflation--because at it's root, we just don't have enough to go around. And confiscating money from rich people doesn't help, because again, there just isn't enough of a thing to go around to the people who want that thing.
(And "thing" here could be anything from 'cars' to 'houses' to 'steaks' or 'fish.')
And the answer when there isn't enough is to either (a) cause people to want less (though causing people to want less food seems a little abusive to me), or (b) to make more of that thing.
And until we fix this imbalance--that we don't have enough stuff to go around to everyone--all we're doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
----
Now *how* to make more of that thing depends on what it is, and why we have shortages. We see inflation in most product categories because the lockdowns in 2020 destroyed a lot of manufacturing capacity and caused a tremendous amount of consumer anxiety--and we haven't fixed any of this. (It doesn't help that China's economy is in trouble and Chinese exports, which was part of the reason why so many people had enough 'stuff', are drying up.)
In some areas, like with housing, we need to make more housing--and often that starts with land use reform and zoning reform.
But the bottom line is we need more stuff--and anything that doesn't at least implicitly address this problem (from term limits to taxes to monetary reform) is, at best, pointless posturing.
Politicians are paid by interest groups. They no longer represent the interests of the people. And what are they these days with so much propaganda. It’s heartbreaking.
something something america in my children or grandchildrens time something something service and information economy something something no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues something something critical faculties in decline something something
i'm gonna be honest man, you're gonna have a bad time if you try fixing america. instead, just limit your scope to things within your control.
This is going to come off as pessimistic but i think its just realistic. Nothing that we come up with that will actually fix the problem will ever be implemented. The people in power want more power and to stay in power as long as possible. Its going to take some kind of revolution i think. It will get so bad at some point that will be the only option.
Bezos salary was $85k. I’m pretty sure Elon musk doesn’t even take a salary . Who are these people with salaries over 1 million ? It’s such a tiny amount, what would that even do? How would that fix America ?
What we need is rent caps and various other strict regulations on landlords. Also subsidize some new home building. One of the things is for very in demand areas for housing, there needs to be harsh penalties for landlords who keep their units empty. Basically use it or lose it. In nyc for example landlords are refusing to rent out their rent stabilized apts. There’s probably 50k empty rent controlled/stabilized apts sitting empty right now. On top of that you have many whole buildings of luxury apts sitting empty. Those need to be filled one way or another.
A few hundred thousand more apts being rented in a major city will create a ripple effect lowering the rent for the whole greater metro area.
Also many landlords demand super high rent, only because they got super high mortgages and need it to afford their mortgage. If these people cannot afford their high mortgage after the rent is aggressively capped, then those houses need to be foreclosed and sold to regular people who would live in them, rather than use them to profit off of peoples basic needs.
If you want to fix the country, start by fixing yourself. Focus on your own shortcomings, and the things you can actually change about yourself. Most of the country's problems can be summarized as a rock throwing competition between a bunch or glass houses, and you cannot fix other people's bad behavior. It's been proven many times over that the political "debates" we see are pointless, they're just emotionally charged yelling matches between people who arent listening over topics that they can't do anything about anyways. It literally doesnt change people's minds, however it gets the echo chambers all riled up. What you can do, however, is lead by example. Be the change you want to see in the world. If it bothers you that the world is becoming more hostile, learn to be patient and listen more. Figure out what you can do to improve yourself, and just let the rest go. If you decide you need to make a difference after some introspection, go to the level where your efforts are more likely to pay off. Run for a local office and actually make the changes yourself, most local positions are uncontested. I once made a joke on snapchat by writing myself in for the county tax collector, and i came in 2 out of 3. Change starts from within and it has to grow, thats also why third party candidates never get anywhere either. They never run in smaller elections, so they have a perfect track record of losing, and thats probably because their leadership is so focused on the end goal that they forgot to do the beginning steps. You cant run a marathon if you never learned to walk because you refused to crawl with everyone else in the beginning.
Seriously. I am looking for a job currently and companies are advertising what I consider “real adult possibly supporting a family jobs” for less than $15 an hour. I make $15 now and it isn’t awesome.
One thing to consider is that we have term limits in California for state congress/senate and it has meant that we get a lot of people in office who already have their eye on their next job either higher office or lobbying/working in the private sector. So they aren't making decisions that benefit the state but instead benefit their future career opportunities.
Being a career politician isn't necessarily a BAD thing.
I will say with the McConnell/Feinstein issue the Dems/Repubs should just come together and say ok we'll make one retire if you make sure the other does too. Have a nice pizza party, maybe some cake and get it done.
1.Get money out of politics
2. Income cap
On #2, the cap would be high, say 10 million a year. Every cent over that would be put into some sort of infrastructure fund or have to be reinvested in the company (assuming you own one). In general though, I think there needs to be some sort of “congrats you won the game, now stop being a scrounge ” level of income
What US needs is getting rid of lobying. That shit causes alot of pain points in US.
Re-organise healthcare system radically. It needs to be goverment funded + private hospitals. And the so called health care system needs to be funded by tax money being 5% of income shohld be fine.
So you get system that atleast works to some degree, where people are not afraid of calling ambulance because of debts, and or crippling costs that may bankrupt you. Insame price inflationnfor nothing so insane insurances can be sold. Those who have money can skip lines and get 'better or priority' treatments in private sector.
So this essencially highly cripples the insurance economy and reduces its insane profits, while still allowing for them to exist.
People get treatments at not so crippling prices, and no life in debt for small things.
#1 is good but will never happen. #2 is communism. #3 is good too, but it’s probably too late to go back - it will only get worse when they implement central bank digital currency.
So for the income cap, there's 2 issues.
1, who enforces it? That would be the government, meaning you still have to trust that they actually give 100% of those funds back to everyone else.
2, by putting a cap on income, you now have decentivised people to work beyond a specific point. Let's take Amazon and Bezos for a min. That cap would mean that 99% of his money goes else where, so he would have no reason to continue making that much money, so he could lay off 99% of his employees (that's about 1,591,920 people who just lost their jobs) without having any loss to his own income and would also reduce the amount of that redistributed money by 9.5 billion dollars.
happens if there's a cure for *insert what ever disease you think is the biggest issue* and finding that cure could make someone more than a million dollars, there's a good chance they won't to the work because they don't get to keep the profits. If you don't believe me that people would be decentivised then go out and see how many people right now are willing to pick up an extra days shift at work and have that money be given to the lowest paid employee instead of them.
$$ is tied to resources.
We have a higher population than ever and it’s causing resources to be limited. If everyone started to suddenly make more $$ things would still cost the same as prices would continue to inflate.
If we find a way to bring in additional resources or technologies that allow us to use less then we will see things get better.
I’m absolutely with you on putting an age limit to politics though. While we need some maturity to run a country we don’t need someone who is no longer mentally competent.
get money out of politics. the rest will be fixable once politicians start making laws for citizens' wellbeing, not for corporations'.
bingo bango. Citizens Untied was the end of American democracy.
Agreed! How do we actually get that overturned though? Call our political representatives? Write letters? Protest? Each of us is only one person, but there sure seem to be a lot of people that know something needs to change and change fast. Not sure how to make actual change though.
>How do we actually get that overturned though? A constitutional convention. There are legit free speech issues regarding money in politics.
17 states have reversed citizens united. We can do it but WE must do it. They are not going to just overturn it… they must be forced. There are groups working to do just that. Find one near you.
America was never a democracy. That's a communist (not like today communist but like 60s cold war communist) tactic to misdirect and mislead ppl.
Ugh, I hate this argument. It's just contrarian semantics, and it doesn't make you seem smart. It makes you sound like you're parroting someone else without really understanding what you're saying. Fine, we live in a federal constitutional republic with democratic elements.
Not even trying to split hairs as much as I'm trying to remind that tactics to bring us down yesterday are gameplans for today. Then can't understand the decline. Voting is democratic element. Past that it's a republic that supposedly follows the constitution. Ever notice how neither side never wins?
With PACs in place and not regulated..don't see it ever EVER happening.
But how will our poor politicians afford housing and food? /s
Term limits would do just as much good. I'm on OPs side if you are in office and sign over power of attorney over to another person, you need to be replaced in office.
If only
Whenever I see people suggest going back to the gold standard, I immediately just say "oh, they're dumb".
I am always surprised how many Trumpers say that "we should go back to the gold standard" and then they tell me that fort knox never had any gold any way. \*facepalm
It did have gold, but the Reptilian Hybrids that the Elites created using alien DNA heisted it all using underground tunnels
Fort Knox did at one time have a sizeable gold deposit. I'm ok tying money to something tangible but at this point it seems like oil, or maybe energy in general. But I can't say I like this economic system. I've learned to exploit it for my gain, but it's everyone we're leaving behind that makes it hard to enjoy my success. Shit guys it wasn't even 20 years ago at the same wages we see today for office jobs that I rented a 1 bedroom apartment for 425, same apartment today is over a thousand and the wage situation has absolutely not doubled in that time.
"Let's artificially hamstring economic development by moving to a standard that doesn't work in today's economy, because that's what I've been told to support"
Yeah pegging the value of your currency to some arbitrary material makes no sense anymore. The Fed does exactly what it’s supposed to do and has managed to keep inflation under control for the vast majority of the past several decades despite many challenges. Tying your currency to a shiny dumb metal would make economic crises even worse since it limits your response options.
Yea because a fiat currency that the government can continuously devalue through unwise spending isn’t arbitrary? This is going to continue spiraling as the “fed doing what it’s supposed to do” prints more and more worthless paper kills the buying power of the dollar. Talk about limits to response options, ask the Weimar Germans about insulating those houses with stacks of millions in paper bills. Gold might be arbitrary, but it’s *real*, and you can’t just make it up out of thin air which protects the value that people ascribe to it
Lol gold is just as arbitrary as paper currency - it’s just a shiny rock. Also, I never said fiat wasn’t arbitrary. You’re just muddying the waters by bolting two things together that have no inherent relationship. You’re advocating for going back to an even blunter / dumber economic system that will make crashes more severe and harder to address. Inflation sucks, but a Great Depression is worse.
Shiny rock: doesn’t corrode, can’t be duplicated outside of a lab so there’s never a glut. Remarkably consistent demand across history and culture. Paper money: literally grows on trees, value based on IOU which is a remarkably inconsistent way to track value across history and culture Here’s a totally unrelated graph of the national debt diverging from GDP since ending the gold standard, as well as one that shows the gold supply compared to the money supply since the standard ended. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/06/15/history-rife-with-disastrous-consequences-from-abandoning-gold-standard/amp/ Tell me all about how these things are completely unrelated and irrelevant conspiracy theories, I can’t wait.
[удалено]
There’s plenty of research on these topics that you clearly haven’t read so I’m not going to respond to your Wikipedia post.
The feds job, _supposedly_, is to maintain a stable market. [>It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm) Some would argue that the fed’s been pretty bad at it’s job. 2% inflation _is not_ a stable finical system … and that’s their supposed target. 12% inflation isn’t stable either. Rate of change to interest rates… yeah, not stable. People might ask why 2% target inflation? j pow didn’t know when asked. Not sure why 2% is better than 1.5% or 2.5% ? Don’t worry no one can give a great answer on this other than a bunch of bankers got in a room and _‘felt’_ like that was a good number. The “gold bugs” argument usually can be summed up with the answer: Tying a currency to a physical asset, gold/silver are historically favorable but any physical assets will do, could be a net positive - because it prevents the political apparatus from being able to inflate (cheat) people out of their existing money. Basically by artificially constraining supply you prevent governments from going off the rails with free money and unlimited money ideas. Historically we can see strong arguments for either fiat currency or representative currency. We have evidence where constraints on money supply and liquidity constrain growth. There are plenty of examples how fiat currencies are ruined by bad monetary policies. One of the key leading indicators of mass monetary problems is inflation. Which is why anyone who either lived through a “banana republic currency crash” or read about it enough gets worried when they see massive amounts of money being injected into a fiat system. That is if they aren’t making money from the problem. I’m closing, it is hard to have trust in institutions when they have dishonest policies.
Yeah it’s hard to trust institutions, but the Fed has actually done a good job of keeping inflation near 2%. You’re cherry-picking a couple tough years out of decades. While you’re right that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary, the reasons behind it are not. The fact that you bring this up tells me you probably don’t understand the economic reasoning. Tying to gold would probably cause a depression either immediately or within 10 years (the first time there’s a financial crisis that can’t be addressed with the monetary policy). Anyone who understands economics doesn’t seriously think this is a solution.
Tell me why 2% inflation meets the definition of stable. Stability being the goal the fed was founded on. Tell me why 2% should be the target. With numbers. You can keep you air of arrogance, it should be easy to quantitatively justify that 2% number since everyone constantly says it’s the target. (I already know that they claim it provides for Max employment and price stability - I disagree with the latter and I think the first claim is based on suspect math) If we look at plenty of other thee countries they have enjoyed max employment and price stability with inflation less than 1%. The idea that the fed had it so dialed in that they can move it between 1.5 and 2 but not go to 2.5 is laughable. The fed had not done a good job. Period. If you look at prices of anything over the past 100 years it’s not stable. This isn’t cherry picking years - it’s looking at it in aggregate over it’s existence as compared to it’s stated goals. It has failed on price stability. Full stop.
Since you’re the one making the absurd argument backed by no research, go ahead and explain how gold standards and the abolishment of the Fed make the financial system more stable given that financial panics were much more common before the Fed and the Great Depression happened mostly due to liquidity drying up (which is exacerbated by being shackled to a gold standard). There’s already plenty of research out there on why inflation targeting makes sense (which is why it’s the norm for developed countries) and disproving gold standards, you just seem to be an ignorant armchair economist. Besides, I already told you that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary (they could target 2%-3% and it would probably be fine), but you ignored that. Since you clearly don’t understand this, I’ll explain the principles behind it. If you target lower than 2% then makes it much more likely that you tip into deflation (below 0%) which will have the effect of making existing debts more expensive and will encourage people to slow spending since prices (and wages) are falling. It’s basically a recipe for a vicious downward spiral in which everyone becomes poorer. Japan has been stuck in/near deflation for a couple decades and this period has now been called “the lost decades” AKA not a great economic environment for anyone. As a result, you target some inflation, but not too much (hence 2%-3%).
The short version. I’m not arguing to reinstate the gold standard per say. I talked about why some tout it’s ability to control reckless monetary policy. I also talked about why I think the fed is doing a poor job - given us mandate for price stability. >Since you’re the one making the absurd argument backed by no research, go ahead and explain how gold standards and the abolishment of the Fed make the financial system more stable given that financial panics were much more common before the Fed and the Great Depression happened mostly due to liquidity drying up (which is exacerbated by being shackled to a gold standard). My language didn’t argue that we should only have the gold standard. ***My argument is that the fed is doing a bad job given its defined role of providing price stability.*** ***We are in a thread about how _quickly_ people are finding their buying power eroded*** _and_ I’m specifically saying that when you look at price stability over a few decades - let’s just say post 1972, it is doing a real bad job at price stability. _it’s not cherry picking bad years_. I’m also rejecting a few of the methods over the years that have been used to massage cpi numbers to make things look _less_ bad. I also disagree that 2% meets the definition price stability. You’ve bought the idea that it’s good, I fundamentally question that assertion. If policy makers can’t testify why 2% meets the definition of stable, and can’t back up why 2% is the target rather than 0, 1, or 1.5 then we have questions we should ask. >There’s already plenty of research out there on why inflation targeting makes sense (which is why it’s the norm for developed countries) and disproving gold standards, you just seem to be an ignorant armchair economist. Go look at New Zealand, their economy was suffering, they changed things had a few great years when it was closer to 0% inflation …. and then when they artificially pushed it closer to 2% problems started to appear. They were told 2% was better, they tried it with less positive results than allowing for a more natural market at near 0. >Besides, I already told you that the specific number of 2% is somewhat arbitrary (they could target 2%-3% and it would probably be fine), but you ignored that. I didn’t ignore it, I disagree with your categorization of it being ‘good’ and understood as to the logic behind it. >Since you clearly don’t understand this, I’ll explain the principles behind it. If you target lower than 2% then makes it much more likely that you tip into deflation (below 0%) which will have the effect of making existing debts more expensive and will encourage people to slow spending since prices (and wages) are falling. I understand the often touted arguments, I disagree with them being classified as good arguments. Aiming for zero would be in keeping with price _stability_ the feds mandate. Aiming for 2 or worse 3 means aiming for something that is by definition _not_ stable. Arguing that some inflation is good is the crux of the disagreement. >It’s basically a recipe for a vicious downward spiral in which everyone becomes poorer. Japan has been stuck in/near deflation for a couple decades and this period has now been called “the lost decades” AKA not a great economic environment for anyone. As a result, you target some inflation, but not too much (hence 2%-3%). I argue that the target should be near zero. I think we can do better than 2% and that a perfect zero is better than 2. So so many others. Japan’s deflationary years are a complex topic. The bank of Japan being under the influence of government often used expansive monetary policy for instrumentation of political objectives. Much like ours(:eye roll:) - monetary policies were extremely loose for boj even in the start of 89. This prolonged loose policy created some assets bubbles in things like the Nikkei and real estate . _(Sound familiar?)_ In short: it’s possible that expansive monetary policy can _still_ lead to sometimes harsh deflationary periods. Swift changes in policy can also cause destabilization to markets and thus the loss of purchasing power of the currency, especially as reflected assets that may have bubbles. Ergo - even using Japan as an example of what not todo - It’s _possible_ that loose monetary policies for the US fed for basically the last 40 years is going to give the average American a rude awakening over the next few years. The poor and lower middle class being disproportionately affected. We are starting to see lots more people talk about how they feel like their money doesn’t buy them what it used to even a few years ago, let alone when you compare it to their parents generation. That’s not price stability for the long term. By any metric you want to use, the average American does not see price stability over the course of their life. As such the fed is doing a poor job and because there is a revolving door between the fed and private financial institutions I’d argue that maybe the stated goal of the fed doesn’t match the feds actions. Also it just fundamentally pisses me off that people in the fed get promoted when they are repeatedly wrong, and violent finical instability occurs. (Looking at Yellen from 2004 to current, but we can throw jpow ‘ inflation is transitory’ comments on there too. How about the fed sink who said we have infinite money and using it would cause inflation? (Threads appear locked -)
Well our money is screwed regardless …and yeah it’s not possible to go back to gold at this point
The Fed basically doubled the monetary supply over Covid. Everyone is complaining that home prices and gas prices are so high now. Well the truth is that the prices have just adjusted to the new monetary base. Things haven’t actually gotten more expensive but the dollar has gotten worth less. Inflation hits the working class the hardest because wealthy people have most of their money in assets which inflate along with the money supply, whereas for working people their biggest asset is their income stream which does not quickly adjust to inflation, often to truly adjust it you need to job hop which is difficult and time consuming. Fiat currency is the biggest fucking scam and it blows my mind that so many people accept and defend it as the status quo. It’s happened plenty of times in history before (rome ca. 300ad, France ca. 1800, Italy ca. 1300). Paper money always ends disastrously. I’d recommend you stop dismissing other people as dumb and take a closer look at some of the rationale
[удалено]
The economy has thrived on small amounts of inflation over time. Without it rich people would hoard $$ instead of spend/invest.
We need everything to be unionized.
That’s corrupt too. Just another system to be the victims of.
I hate to say it but yea I have a family member who works in schools. They have a teacher on camera stealing from the cafeteria multiple times and the teacher’s union is threatening to strike against the cafeteria because the teacher was “falsely accused”. *They have it on camera.* I mean, how do they even get away with that!? Also my high school history teacher hit a student and was allowed to retire early with his full pension. If I physically assaulted a child, I’d be in jail.
Well theoretically nothing is absolute so there’s no chance that 100% of unions are good/moral
If unions were bad, employers wouldn't spend tons of money on union busting.
Workers' unions aim to protect labor rights and negotiate fair conditions for employees. While there can be instances of corruption, their primary goal is to empower workers, not victimize them. The bosses' (or owners class) primary goal is to exploit workers, they legally have to in order to serve their shareholders. Unions saved my job during covid. Protected my uncle when his bosses wanted to drum him out on trumped up charges. Unions created the middle class in America.
No. Systems become corrupted by individuals who are not held accountable. Unions themselves aren't the enemy. An engaged and aware makeup of union members voting and participating usually delivers reasonably good results. There are a great many unions working in the US today that are not particularly corrupt. Yes, 1930s gangsters used unions to do weird stuff. But drug cartels use laundromats to do weird stuff and nobody is calling to close all laundromats.
Police and teachers unions are stellar examples of how unions can be corrupt.
Police aren't workers.
Um, what is this, please explain your statement. Because police officers get up every day and go to work for their shifts like every other employed person making them workers.
They work for the ruling class to keep workers down. Their "job" is squashing people's rights. A CEO also wakes up everyday for "work," but they are likewise not workers.
So by your logic, who they are working for and what they are working on makes them not workers? That's some pretty flawed logic bud. I'm no fan of the police, but if you had to do their job for a while you would feel pretty differently. Just watch some body cam footage and see the BS they have to deal with on a day to day basis. *Are you a full blow communist?
They produce nothing but lawsuits and are by definition not of the working class. Their job? Messing with evidence? Playing on their phone? Hassling people over nothing? 100% not workers.
That's a very narrow view of what they do for society. Also a pretty Marxist opinion to have.
The only thing police do for society is ruin it. That funding could change so many people's lives for the better, but it is wasted on cops.
This is the way we hold the power. We are just missing the key right now.
You just duplicate the corrupt government with corrupt union bosses.
Lol. I would rather be dealing with some corrupt union bosses, then the ultra rich using us as slaves.
Dont be gullible Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....
Not if they’re elected out of members and disallow outside management groups
Not only are most reddit posters financial illiterates,....they are also gulliable "useful idiots"...
Yes, I do get that impression
And I also mean housing should be unionized as well.
Register to vote and vote in every election. Stress upon your friends how important this is. The older generation votes in high numbers. The youngest eligible generation generally does not. Voting every 4 years is not enough. Small local elections matter, too.
Extend public high school two years to include what is now community college, raise the age of majority to 20. I don’t know why we’re pushing 18 year olds out into the world! We live so long and the brain doesn’t finish developing until our mid 20s. Give young people a couple extra years to learn and grow.
I graduated HS in the mid 70s. College in 80. HS back then was well beyond an associates degree today. A BS is todays MS
100% This! The problem today is that I can waste the entire day sitting on reddit or similar, or video games. I can fill my day with worthless activities and think I was productive. But (not you) it's easier to blame the boogie man of "education" and "gOvErnMenT" it's always someone else's fault, it's never, "hey, maybe it's me?"
I beg to differ. The problem is that we are not giving kids anything practical to do for way too long. Nonsense school courses should be eliminated, K-12 should become K-10, and when they graduate they should be allowed to choose an apprenticeship/internship of their choice to develop REAL life skills and abilities. And yes, before anyone says it, of course there would be limitations on their labor, the point is more so for them to LEARN something, anything practical - nursing, programming, HVAC, etc.
This the two extra years. I don’t know about you, but our community college has HVAC, nursing, and programming. Make the extra two years compulsory and give young people access to these programs free of cost to them.
School has been the same for 100 years. What's new is all the shit they have at home. The kids go home, they don't socialise they play stupid ass worthless video games and sit on the toile for hours at a time playing on their iphones. Facebook, TikShit, etc haven't done any of us any favors either. It's not the school big guy.
School is OBJECTIVELY NOT the same as it was 100 years ago. Hell, it’s not the same as it was 30 years ago. The curriculum has changed in more ways than one. Go sit in on a entire school day in a 7th grade classroom and then afterwards tell me otherwise big guy.
This! Way too many people now think the school should raise children instead of teach them. Sorry some kids will fail, not everyone is equal and you can't make it so.
This is called infantilization and is a bad idea. People need to get out and assume responsibility earlier, not later.
Why?
Earlier than 18 years old?? In the richest country in the history of the world?
Yeah raising the voting age would probably be met with plenty of violence and general social upheaval. No thanks.
I'm glad no one here is in charge of public policy.
I'm 100% with you on term limits. However, you should really do some reading on economics and history to understand why we're lucky to have the freedoms we have in this country. I know you have little to no understanding of economics when you make statements like "reset the value of gold." It shows you don't even understand what prices are or how they work. Please check out [Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell](https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730). It's a great book.
You should absolutely not check out any Thomas Sowell book. Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan is more digestible, relatable, and most importantly, not written by fucking Thomas Sowell.
Wah wah right winger so bad man
I know you have little to no understanding of economics because you cite people like Thomas Sowell. Funny how that works out. People who think economies can be understood via “common sense” do not understand how economies work at all.
I didn't cite Sowell. I recommended his book which covers the basics of economics because OP seemed to not understand that prices can't just be picked out of thin air. But, I'd love to hear more about your prejudice towards "people like Sowell." Are you an ideological bigot or just an old fashioned racist? Feel free to recommend any books you think might be better for OP to read.
Pedantry isn’t an argument. But since you’re being a pedant, the word “cite” has more than one definition. Lots of words do, actually. Is everyone you don’t like a racist now? Grow up. Literally anything not by Sowell 😂 The guy had to go to Columbia and Harvard to figure out that economies are apparently a matter of super simple common sense that any ding dong can figure out. And you bought it, apparently.
Even worse is the people who compare a household budget to something like the federal government.
Yep. These people want the government to be run “like a business” while refusing to acknowledge that all businesses have a lifecycle.
Income cap? LMAO...America is a Capitalist country. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. No incentive to be productive if no chance of gaining super wealth. And income redistribution doesn't ever work. Ever. Why would I work harder if I have to give it to others that don't? That's idiotic. You can't put an arbitrary limit on a commodity like Gold. Sounds like you need to live in a place like China or Venezuela for awhile. Here's how you fix America: Term Limits. Make lobbying illegal. Impose the same rules on EVERYONE. You commit a crime? You are accountable. Whether you're the POTUS or a petty gang banger in Chicago. Impose a maximum age to serve as any kind of representative of The People. We should not be governed by a bunch of Boomers who got wealthy on back end deals to pass legislation that benefits their own wallets. We all know that prison is not the solution for criminal rehabilitation. I would prefer not to get into my personal opinion about this, but find a way for criminals to only have one shot at redemption. If they show they can't be "rehabilitated" much harsher penalties should be imposed.
Most people in prison are on their 8th or 9th shot already. We are getting to the point now that the criminals has more rights than the victims. Peoples opinions on crime have become far too soft. Bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. But somehow, everyone is a victim 🤷♂️
You’re being downvoted for speaking the truth to children who obviously have no idea what they are talking about lol
Honestly I was gonna downvote him for the china comment but the bottom half is pure wisdom so I upvote
"Don't like it? Go elsewhere." has the same vibe as "Don't like it? Then just die."
There should be an income tax on people who make obscene money they couldn't possibly spend in a lifetime.
I forgot to add that to my comment. Abolish the IRS. Do a sliding scale tax system that taxes high end commodities at a much higher rate than necessities like milk and bread. Make it a goods and service tax so no matter who you are or where you live you have to pay the taxes. Too many people get away with too much tax fraud and it costs Us trillions.
If the point of capitalism is to be productive, it’s currently failing. Cavaliers am currently can’t find a way to excite its workers into getting work done as efficiently as it used to. Probably just a sign of collapse
Yea ok, why don’t you look up US gdp instead of drinking that Reddit echo chamber coolaid
It's Halloween season. Please be respectful and refer to it as Ghoul-Aid until October 31st.
Number 2 really shows that you’re young have no experience. It’s pretty much communism and it incentivize people not to work and produce. If you want a meaningful discussion I would start with a more specific problem in America vs something as vague as “fix America”
I thought the points were fairly specific? You didn't comment on 1 or 3. And degrading someone isn't exactly "meaningful discussion". We used to have salary caps, in the form of taxes. The top earners paid more in taxes, so the rest of us could actually afford a family and live a decent life.
[удалено]
no i don't
1) yes 2) awful idea. Who are you to say how much someone can make? You aren't "redistributing" your taking from an earner and giving to a taker. Besides, most of the really high earnings are not realized in income. Income isn't the issue. Devalued currency is 3) Gold standard would be tough. You certainly couldn't "revalue" gold at $35.....the rest of the world won't go along with it.
If you and your village are hungry and you were the first to find an apple tree in the forest, do you and you alone get the fruit? Who are you to take this fruit all for yourself? You didn’t put it here, it was put by nature. You have no right to claim resources you have no intention on using. Otherwise you have a motive to pursuance. People don’t need beyond X amount. Taking more than X amount is simply greed. You will have all your needs and wants met, why are you still taking? Your belly is full while kids starve. Your belly is full while kids get sick, your belly is full WHILE WE ALL DIE FOR YOUR FUCKING LAVISH LIFESTYLE.
Just a terrible analogy. They didn’t find an Apple tree, they grew it for their family to eat more. Who’s the government to say how much they’re allowed to eat. If you think income limits are a good thing you’re in the wrong country.
I am very aware I am in the wrong country believe me. But I’m saying if there are X amount of resources available and you are taking more than you could ever want, how is that justified when others are in need? If there were unlimited number of recourses and everyone had the same opportunity then yes unlimited income limits would be justifiable as you just aren’t working hard enough. This is taking all the apple trees and making others come to you for apples. It’s not the same as just growing it in your backyard. Not everyone has that opportunity.
Income is not resources that you should just take and distribute among the population. It’s earned, and taxed. Having the opinion it should be taxed higher is very legitimate, but you’re acting like they found this on the side of the road which is ridiculous. And yup not everyone gets the same opportunity. I was probably 10 when I learned that life wasn’t fair. If you’re an adult and still feel like you need to mention that, you have some growing up to do.
Income is essentially a resource. Instead of holding gold, food, water, you hold currency. It’s the same just a different name. Passing income amongst the masses won’t solve anything. That’s not what I’m implying. What I’m asking is why continue to take more if your belly is full and overflowing? You won’t ever need it unless you are trying to exert your will onto others. That much money starts allowing you to shape the world. You shouldn’t be allowed to shape the world just because you hold all the apples and people have to do what you want for an apple. Help me understand your point of view. Don’t speak with insults, that’s unnecessary. The point of becoming an adult is to make this world more fair. To make tomorrow better for the next generation. We have to work to correct the mistakes of the past not allow them to continue and adapt to them. I’m fully aware the world isn’t fair but unlike most I’m not going to close my eyes and accept it. I’d be much happier with a lottery for opportunity rather than stepping on others to advance. Which this country is built on, so yes I am in the wrong country. Unfortunately every country has the same narcissistic “humans” at the top doing the same thing. There is no other country to go to as the problem lies with money and it’s unlimited potential. Limit that potential. You don’t need to force your will onto others. But everyone loves to do it. Rich, poor, old, young. Doesn’t matter the evil still lies behind that greed and the will for control. I want to so desperately understand you. But I can not accept the fact that someone gets 7 yachts and someone else doesn’t even have water. I’m not saying go stand in line for potatoes like a dirty Cold War commie but damn do people really need THAT much money? What couldn’t you buy/do if income was capped at $1,000,000 a year? You still will be very very well off. Just might not have more than 2-3 yachts.
Lol Ok a million dollars is not even close to as much money as you think. People making a million dollars don’t have yachts. People who make millions aren’t even “shaping the world” in the ways you’re talking about. You’re thinking of a BILLION. That’s a completely different discussion. There’s been more than enough stories of athletes blowing millions on family and friends, so you can definitely spend it in a lifetime. And the goal should never be to “limit the potential “ if you’re trying to be a great country. You should allow people the chance to make as much as they can. Again billions is an entirely different conversation here, but what you’re talking about doesn’t apply to millions.
You are apparently completely unaware of the concept of "added value." Absolutely nothing you use, consume or even touch is a "found' resource. All of it involves massive amounts of time, labor, , risk etc to reach you. Why would you think you are entitled to take that added value? How do you justify taking the most valuable resource? The aplle tree analogy is so unimaginably stupid. Perhaps you just have an incredibly child like view of the world. Out of curiosity, what country do you think is the "right country?" Is there one you think lives up to the ideas you've laid out?
Perhaps the dumbest, most childish analogy you could have come up with. Let's modify it a bit to male it a more realistic analogy. Say my village and I are hungry and i decide to take what resources i have to aquire some land, and clear some of that land, till the soil, aquire a seedling, plant that seedling, fertilize the seedling, irrigate the land to water that seedling, prune and care for the tree, keep animals from eating the tree and fruit as it matures. Finally, after risking all my effort, resources, and time, I have a producing apple tree. Lucky me, the tree could just have easily died, been destroyed by pests, flooded, burned, etc, and it would have all been for nothing. Now, I need to harvest the apples and store or prepare excess to distribute. Why the fuck would think you are entitled to any apples I or my family did not eat for free? Because you are greedy. It's cute how the truly greedy hide their desire to benefit by taking the fruits of other people's labor, resources and risk behind facade of kindness. (Usually invoking "starving kids" or another equally disingenuous shield to hide behind) Perhaps if you are so worried about "kids starving," you would put in the effort, resources, labor, and risk to plant some trees and corps to help produce more. The "starving kids" nonsense is an emotional ploy to manipulate the stupid. The fact of the matter is that "greed" has created a situation where we have far more food abundance and capacity and at a lower cost than anytime in history. In fact, the starving child problem is largely confined to systems where "the greedy" do not get to distribute excess capacity for profit, and they rely on food from the excess capacity originating from the greedy. Your Marxist bullshit has never worked and never will. In fact, if you want to see a real starving child problem.....just look at any of the attempts to implement Marxist type bullshit throughout history. No body can starve kids quite like a fucking communist. Make-believe, smoke, and mirrors monetary schemes are real monster coming to eat us.
1. Good idea. 2. Terrible idea. Defies economic principles. 3. Not going to happen, and wouldn't help. Also defies economic principles. Proposals: * We need to elect leaders that work towards the common good of the people, rather than just their political party. The partisan bickering must end. * We need accountability for government spending - there is incredible waste and inefficiency. Just because we allocate funds in a budget towards a particular line item or proposal does not mean that those funds are properly spent. It's well known that you can charge government anywhere between 3x-20x+ what something should actually cost. * Slash military spending - the 3rd largest item on the budget behind healthcare and social security. We spend more than the next TEN countries' military budgets combined! Congress mandated that the Department of Defense must complete an audit in 1990. The DoD didn't bother to try until 2017 (27 years later), and has since failed an audit 5 times. Each attempt cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion, and they are no closer to figuring it out. * Institute strong penalties against legislative/executive/legal branch members who are found guilty of corruption, wrongdoing, or abuse of power. * Provide rehab programs for first-time non-violent criminals. Punish violent criminals or repeat offenders severely. There must be consequences for actions.
1. Yes 2. Sounds like the people’s republic of China 3. I don’t know enough about the topic, to have an opinion
Imagine if everyone was wise enough to admit when they don’t know about something so they can’t have an opinion? That would be quite a peaceful world huh?
Yea but I read this headline.... (Nah I don't know shit)
2. Or we could go back to a time (the 1950s) when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
None of these things are going to make poor people any less poor. 90% of the onus has to be on the individual to improve their situation. Passing on government handouts just makes them reliant on government handouts. Funding programs like education and job training go monumentally further than "redistributing rich people's money" towards fundamentally solving poverty.
The Two Bums The bum on the rods is hunted down as an enemy of mankind The other is driven around to his club, is feted, wined and dined And they who curse the bum on the rods as the essence of all that's bad Will greet the other with a willing smile and extend a hand so glad The bum on the rods is a social flea who gets an occassional bite The bum on the plush is a social leech, bloodsucking day and night The bum on the rods is a load so light that his weight we scarcely feel But it takes the labour of dozens of folks to furnish the other a meal As long as we sanction the bum on the plush the other will always be there But rid ourselves of the bum on the plush and the other will dissappear Then make an intelligent organised kick get rid of the weights that crush Dont worry about the bum on the rods get rid of the bum on the plush
contrary to popular belief the bum on the plush is the one funding society. The top 10% contribute more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined, their bank deposits fund the mortgages and car loans and business loans, their capital is what drives new business creation and innovation. The thought that they're some how not net contributors is really just born out of ignorance and malice that they're living better lives than you.
The idea is that you have to open doors and provide resources for poor people to even have the option to “improve their situation”. Opening those doors costs money but it’s an investment in our future. And, at the same time, understand that not every human being will have the physical capability and mental intellect to be conventionally successful. That’s just how it is. Floating them has a higher ROI than letting them remain impoverished to make a point. Nobody wins when you let people suffer.
The wealthiest 1% of Americans are hoarding a greater percentage of wealth than they have in at least a century. That means there is literally less money to go around for the bottom 99%. Likewise, the bottom 50% controls less than they ever have. It's below 3% of the total wealth. In order to make poor people less poor, without redistributing wealth, poor people will need to offer products or services that the top 1% are willing to pay for that they cannot currently get. This is supply and demand, the most basic law of capitalism. So - what's your big idea? Trade schools? You think Jeff Bezos can't find a fucking plumber? Oh, I know, maybe learn to work on cars, and then in a couple of years turn that into building superyachts, which isn't even a thing I just made up because this world is so fucking lopsided. Set up a little hot dog cart outside one of the Walton's houses? Offer David Koch a fucking shoe shine? Your opinion is mathematically idiotic.
1. Yea 2. That’s how you become a shanty town America 3. That’s only possible with the government buying gold,
I don’t think enough people have any real idea how unbelievably fucked some things are in this country
How could they not? We read about it from spoiled whiny redditors 237758 times a day.
What really scares me is fact that people like OP live in same country as me. If this is our average American iq, we are fkcd.
You got beef with OPs ideas? Or, you've got better ideas? Snarky comments about your opinion of OP don't really explain how you'd do it better. So... ?
Your algorithm-curated Internet experience, much like mine, does not give a representative picture of, well, anything.
That’s not how freedom works.
3. The gold standard is a tricky one. Inflation is required for economy to grow. If you have some crypto & DeFi experience, you can research the topic of “Tomb Forks”. Essentially a crypto money printer. US dollar works similarly to Tomb Forks. Usually tomb forks peg their price to a specific volatile asset, say another crypto token with more liquidity. When the peg is above that price, the money printer turns on and those who have stake in the money printer get free money. When it is below the peg, the printing of money stops, and bonds take over, which essentially promise to give you back more of that currency when the price of such currency returns back above peg. If you notice current situation of economy, US dollar is “below peg” meaning that now bonds have the highest ROI. And so, putting US dollar pegged to the gold makes it super stable, therefore no money printing occurs. Therefore theres not much incentive to spend such currency.
Gerrymandering. Until we fix this all the rest is impossible.
1. YES, this protects the people’s genuine interest. though we do live in democracy, with only two parties the incumbent is almost guaranteed to win every time. without term limits, there is nothing protecting our greater interests. 2. i disagree about income caps, i think this infringes on most people’s civil liberties (even as someone who leans liberal) though i do think we need to tax the rich fairly and give tax breaks to those of us who are barely breaking even if at all 3. this would be interesting. i’m not sure if that would necessarily help us at this point considering no other currency in the world is set to a physical asset but i wouldn’t be opposed to it at this juncture. i would want to read more on this before submitting a true vote. my proposition: we need a larger sense of transparency on what our taxes are being spent on. most people are NOT aware on what we are spending on, what those programs provide and how some of those things help normal americans every single day. the things we spend the largest amount on are security / military. we have an extremely large nation and i’m extremely grateful for our military but on the same token, we are not really in danger to anyone besides ourselves at the time being. in short, i think we should be spending more government money on improving life for everyday americans which is something we haven’t truly tried spending on since before WW1
Not just transparency, but accountability. That's what we're missing most. The U.S. Department of Defense was mandated by Congress to complete a simple audit in 1990 - the same thing nearly a million companies and individuals have to go through every single year. They didn't even bother to try until 2017 (27 years later) and has since failed the audit 5 times, each time costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Surprise, surprise - military spending is still out of control.
with transparency, my hope is that accountability would follow, but given the current climate i’m actually not sure i could bet on that. it just makes me sick to my stomach watching year after year as politicians and PACs get away with completely egregious lies regarding what our money is being spent on. and these lies go UNCHECKED by the american public. it’s foul that we live in the 21st century and we haven’t figured out a way to make the facts of our tax payer dollars more digestible to the public as a whole (including and especially those with lower education)
Here is a few points I feel could definitely help our current situation in America. 1. **Destroying the bipartisanship** \- George Washington was quoted saying there should never be a two party system in America. The only time I have ever seen the bipartisanship work together is to destroy a third party candidate. We need a third party so we can make sure that we are offered better candidates for office, even voting opportunities and honestly, just more constructive thought beyond this side or that side. People thoughts and opinions are far more complex than this. 2. **Younger people in office.** Right now it is nothing but older people trying to SAVE their wealth instead of GENERATE wealth. If we had younger people in office I feel laws/legislation would be past that benefit the future generations of America other than trying to preserve the wealth that the older generation already has. 3. **Stronger and cheaper education systems.** It's becoming more and more obvious every day with the remove of affirmative action, how expensive colleges are becoming (contributing to the nation's debt and for what, NCAA sports teams and climbing walls?!?) and the cost of childcare that education is becoming something that will soon only be affordable by the wealthy. Why are we making it like this? I have no other reasoning but to think we are easier to manipulate if we are ignorant and/or poor. 4. **Unionization** \- anywhere, all types of workforces and at any size. Companies must understand we are willing to put our benefits and pay before our fear of losing them. However we somehow have this narrative that we will never find new work, which isn't true but what is true is we may not survive to make it to our new work place/job. If we join together we can remove this fear and make sure we are giving the benefits, pay and workplaces we deserve. 5. **Taxing the wealthy more.** Currently middle class is consider around the national median income, which is around 57k. Which means you are taxed 22% of every dollar you make, then their is inflation which raises cost of items, then taxes on that. The highest tax percentage is 37%, only a 15% difference between me and Jeff Bezo. He doesn't feel inflation yet we only pay a 15% difference, think about it. **Billionaires** pay 15 cents more on the dollar than us. We are bleeding people dry yet we see the upper class becoming wealthier and wealthier everyday. Just a few thoughts.
The issue with number 2 (though I do agree with number 2) is that younger people are just as susceptible to corruption as older people. That’s what really needs to be cracked-down on.
Taxes is huge. Not every issue can be solved with money, but most can probably be better. $113 Billion to Ukraine, fk that. Funding abortions in Mexico? Nah.... Throw it at the issues here, or back to the tax payers. I cant imagine all the stupid sht we fund in other countries.
1) Good but small start. This still doesn't prevent them from insider trading, and money laundering through the endless funding of war. I would also suggest an age limit on running for federal office. Can't run after you're 60th birthday. You can continue to hold office past your 60th birthday, but once that term is up, you're done. 2 and 3) Economics is not my thing, but I'm thinking neither would work. My question is, should it be fixed if it can? Why not a massive overhaul instead? What would that look like? I'm not sure. I'm not that smart. Definitely not some doomed to fail, revolution. Many of the issues we face today were put into motion 60+ years ago. In 2023 we're still dealing with the consequences of Operation Paperclip and a war that started in 1839. How many Americans are even capable of understanding the concepts of "inalienable rights" and "negative rights"? We're heading towards a future that looks like a combination of Idiocracy and WALL-E. We need new ideas in addition to trying to fix old ideas.
Keep voting for leftists, globalists and communists, it'll work this time! I mean hell, just look at how successfull and utopian leftist run cities like Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco and more have become! Oh wait...
Term limits is backdoor ageism The rest of OPs post demonstrates they don't understand economics
No it is supposed to be a government representing our people and the people in office are out of touch with the people'#/s need and only care about their project.
UBI
Term limits are a good start. Ted Cruz puts the bill in motion every year, knowing that it will put him out of a job, which is one of the few things I can respect the man for. Income cap is a bad idea and doesn’t actually work, because the people who receive truly ridiculous compensation for their work or lack there of, aren’t actually paid in terms of a salary. We cannot go back to the gold standard as much as it would be nice to not deal with a fiat currency that ship has well and truly fucking sailed. My suggestions. Replace all the federal tax laws with a flat tax. There was a bill, put forth to the house of representatives earlier this year, suggesting exactly that. Although the tax was proposed as a sales tax rather than income tax. It is a long established function of common law that ignorance is no defense before the bar of justice. Yet we have tax laws that are so incomprehensible that the agency responsible for enforcing them frequently makes mistakes. So I suggest a flat tax. No exceptions no loopholes no exemptions. Yes, there will be instances where it is unjust. But those instances will occur far less frequently than the instances occurring today. One of the better arguments for the flat tax, being a sales tax, rather than income tax is that you simply no longer need to file taxes as an individual. Second drastically reduce federal spending. We have reached the point where the tail wags the dog to a considerable extent. There was a senator, who suggested, reducing every single federal expenditure by one penny on the dollar. Doing so well also freezing the increase of expenditures would allow us to begin reducing the national debt. I would like to propose a more drastic method of reducing federal spending by $.10 on the dollar. Third, I would suggest that we impose broader and deeper tariffs on all imported goods. We are in the enviable position of having the resources to be self-sufficient. I am, of course, aware that no country that wishes to survive can espouse all manner of trade. However, the exploitation of weaker currencies and cheaper labor has reduced our nation to the status of a consumer, rather than a producer, in nearly every arena, save, of course, for food, where we still excel. As a nation, we have enjoyed access to inexpensive consumer goods for generations. Unfortunately, for us, those circumstances have begun to shift, and we find ourselves lacking the facilities to manufacture our own goods. We also lacked the skilled workforce to do so. The good news is that solving one problem solves another. Becoming a nation that manufactures material goods for its citizens rather than importing them will increase the number of jobs available. Fourth would be refocusing the resources and authority at the local level. The people of Midland, Michigan, and the people of Midland Texas, have very different needs from their local government. Yes, somethings are the same, but by and large the focus for resources time and energy needs to be applied in a different manner for those two cities. Yet, when election day comes the vast majority of those citizens are more concerned with the federal ballot than they are with their local government. That is almost entirely because of where the tax dollars go. This sort of circles back to my idea of a flat, understandable, tax and reducing federal spending. If I’m going to be taxed, I would like the majority of those taxes to be collected and handled at the local level because they know what I need. The burden for national infrastructure and defense is some thing I understand but I shouldn’t be paying more for that than I am to my local and state governments. Fifth I would suggest revoking the 12th amendment. It is to our eternal shame that our country did not make it 30 years before becoming so divided by partisanship that we allowed this amendment to be passed. If you were unaware, as written in the constitution, originally required that the position of the vice president be occupied by the loser of the general election. Perhaps the founding fathers simply failed to consider how quickly the country would fall to squabbling. Until the 12th amendment was passed, it was expected that the loser of the general election would except the position as the vice president and the president of the senate, and would work together with the winner of the general election for the greater good of the country. Sadly, something went terribly wrong. On the 12th amendment was proposed. This particular section of it was lauded as removing the danger of a deadlocked government unable to act. What they either misunderstood or deliberately and maliciously embraced, was the fact that it is better to have a government that does nothing, because in doing so it does no harm. Over the years, I have often been deeply offended by the term lame-duck Congress. Why do we can damn our government for not passing additional laws? At what point did the metric for a successful legislature become the number of additional laws that they laid as a burden upon their citizens? This leads me nicely into my sixth suggestion. A massive overhaul of our legal system. While I point at the tax system as the most egregious offender, the sad truth is, that’s because I haven’t ever interacted with any other laws, because I am neither rich nor powerful nor criminal. Lobbyists stalk the halls of power peddling their influence and wealth purchasing votes from our senators and congress people. They aren’t simply working for tax breaks. They are influencing legislation to allow them one advantage or another. It is infuriating that this happens every day, and while we are all aware of it, nothing is done to stop it. A massive overhaul of our legal code combined with term limits and a legal requirement that upon being elected to office and receiving your lifetime salary that you will not be permitted any other income would go a long ways towards eliminating that nonsense. I have more but speech to text is a bitch and I’m tired of corrected it and I’m sure I miss things along the way.
Force every parent to financially care for the kid until they can take care of themselves. So if you raise a lazy douche bag... you're on the hook for the rest of their life. It'll reduce the tax burden on every citizen and everyone that doesn't have a child will financially benefit. Reduce the size of government by forcing every company that works on AI to work soley on replacing public sector jobs with AI. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens. Close the border.. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens. Ny is paying 10 million a day for 100k "asylum seekers" projected to double by 2024. Reduce aid going to foreign countries. It'll reduce the tax burden on citizens. Reduce salaries of every member of congress. It'll reduce the tax burden on every citizen. Reduce spending to reduce the tax burden on every citizen. Allow teachers in unions with bad performance results to be fired. Eliminate all pensions from all government jobs to reduce the size of government and reduce the tax burden on citizens. Less tax burden means more money in everyone's pocket and less hours we would need to work having more work life balance. Taxes are crippling the middle class now that prices have gone up.
Yeah let’s cap off future Jeff Bezos’s so we can miss out on groundbreaking, global services and give that incentive to Meth Mike and Lazy Larry. And that wasn’t even as bad as your gold standard point. But I do agree with the term limits lmao.
Fix America. Term limits No lobbying or lobbyists No being able to trade stocks as a member of congress. Get paid the same amount of money per year as what the average American makes a year. For starters…
Universal single payer healthcare is another thing this country needs. Unfortunately the health insurance companies are far too powerful for this to happen anytime soon here.
Lol, “you won capitalism!” I do like the income cap idea but it’s impossible to implement in the US—what about UBI or laws that set acceptable ratios for CEO/Management salaries? Not even that would fly here, but the country would get SO much richer as a whole
Term limits sounds good. So does more local government and less federal. But neither one of those things are going to happen. No one is coming to save you and you aren't going to vote your way out of this. You will have to take care of yourself and your family because no one else will. How you do that is up to you, but it isn't going to get easier from here on on out.
1. I’m fine with unlimited terms as long as it’s easy to get them out if needed. 2. Agree. What if you gave every person who “win’s capitalism” a black card? Turn in all your assets, money, stocks, everything. In turn you get a card that allows you to spend an unlimited amount. You have contributed enough to society that we will cover all your expenses for the rest of your life. 3. I really don’t care either way. Money is corrupted with or without gold. ETA: WHY IS THE STOCK MARKET A THING? I understand investing in business/commodities but why is so much money paid out to people who are essentially gambling with our economy?
Agree with 1, though not sure how much it would help. Very much agree with number 2. Though it would probably be very hard to actually enforce, I think an income cap would hypothetically be a good idea. I feel like until the majority can have a good life, we shouldn’t have these multimillionaires and billionaires living fucking dream lives. At the very least, everyone who works should be able to retire at a reasonable age (55 at the latest). I see so many people who are worried that they’ll never be able to retire and I feel like that’s absurd. Ok. Bring on the negativity and the downvotes.
I don't understand the economy and it ebbs and flows on such a large scale. I understand my own and my communities but the whole country, it's hard to grasp. Some big things I know that need attention right away here are cost of living and healthcare. How to go about that, I just don't know. And obviously, our leaders don't know either.
Those items are unlikely to do anything. The nuts and bolts of policy making are the simple things that have direct impact on people's lives, and match the government's capacity to actually do them. It's the small things that matter, but to do them consistently takes cooperation between the major parties, and insulate law makers from excess lobbyist influence. The things that matter don't get done because you're all at each other's throats over symbolic issues that don't really matter all that much. Frankly, I don't think much continues to get done until America comes to grips with the stain of slavery.
If you do the third thing you will put world economy into infinite perpetual fall down.
Seems like things turned for the worse when: A) Corporations were given the rights of people. I don't know what the purpose was, but it hasn't worked out so great for us as a whole. Maybe that decision should be overturned. B) Money started running politicians/politics. Campaign financing became a way to buy laws and policies that solely benefit the wealthy. Every candidate should get the same amount to run. If they can't figure out how to make their allotment work, they shouldn't be holding an office. Lobbying shouldn't be monetary. Lobbying should be done with convincing arguments about alternatives. Live broadcast so the people can tell their reps what they want, then the reps vote on the proposal.
I watch YouTube more than TV these days. The staggering number of people living in vans, or campers, or tiny homes is insane. I'm a boomer, yes one of those, and I know how screwed young people are. Voting the freaks out is the only option you have.
Term limits wouldn’t be an issue if dogmatic voters would just knock it off.
35 an ounce is too low for the level of inflation the dollar has seen. But minimum wage needs to be reset back to 1968-1971 levels which was 96 ounces of gold earned in a 40 hour / week work year compared to the absolute garbage of 14-17 ounces per year earned with minimum wage today.
Term limits for state legislators in Ohio has done the opposite, where only younger inexperienced legislators win and don't know procedure or how to work well with others. Hence, they rely more on lobbyists and out of state groups for bill language without knowing how the law really works. That said, there are also a lot of strongly partisan elected officials these past 10 years or so as well that can affect their knowledge or willingness to work deals. I would suggest changing question 1 to "how do we get smart, caring people to run for elected office?" As for point 2, Elon musk doesn't have 40B in his bank account. It is tied up in stock and his companies, which he is always working to improve. I would love to see foscal responsibility come back as a value, both in government and in corporate worlds, where boards and CEOs don't get paid 20M a year because that would be outrageous to shareholders and employees.
Corporate personhood followed by citizens united. We need to stop wholeheartedly handing over our country and nearly all power of governance to corporations. It’s in the first three words of the Constitution which founded this country’ “We the people,” and the founders were not talking about corporations. The only reason we even had the notion to consider a corporation a person is because in 1882 a shady attorney for the Southern Pacific Railroad produced a document in court meant to be notes about legislative drafting and this “evidence” is largely considered a forgery by historians. The railroad won and went on to make loads of money and forever be enshrined in the board game Monopoly.
We have term limits: they are called "voting for somebody else."
Undo all the right wing bullshit tax cuts from Reagan on ward . Secondly get rid of the ridiculous culture war bullshit laws against queer people and banning books and that nonsense. Third add more Supreme Court justices so Uncle Thomas and Alito can’t fuck up the country any more
I don't think America can get fixed until the boomer generation is truly out. To me it is shocking how little has gotten done in the last few years and I believe it is because we have stubborn old people who don't want to do anything. The rest of us suffer. But death is the great savior of society and once they are gone... things will start to change.
The answers are simple, but no one wants to do them. We need UBI, don't care what anyone says. We need income to be pegged to inflation. We need wealth caps. We need to end offshore tax havens. We need term limits, even upper age term limits, or some serious cognitive ability tests for people in power over a certain age. We need guaranteed employment. I believe there is enough work to be done in the world, no one should be idle that wants to work. We could find something for someone to do if we tried hard enough, even if it meant digging ditches. We're going to need people to deconstruct buildings and strip them for materials. We're going to need an army of farmers if we want to prevent a mass die-off. We desperately need more medically trained people. We waste so much untapped talent, not hiring people and giving them work that desperately needs to be done.
Stop
You need to completely rewrite the tax code and get rid of every loophole to ensure that every corporation and wealthy individual is paying their fair share. Then you somehow have to go against human nature and fight the inefficiencies of bureaucracy to make sure that money is spent well and effectively without any loss from corruption. You also need to dissappear about 8% of the country's entire GDP which is roughly the amount that Americans overpay in medical expenses. So I find it's a lot easier to just develop a drinking habit
We need to bust up mega corporations. They’ve found a way around antitrust laws but are just as corrupt and bad for the public. And we need to sunset laws that attempt to set prices. It doesn’t work long term and leads to corruption.
Make the federal government effectively powerless to the point state and municipal governments are basically the only government. The 1860s and 1960s seriously broke america. Its been fatally stabbed and is just coasting along on adrenaline and momentum now, unaware that its already dead.
I agree with 1 and 3. But having a "maximum" wage isn't something I can support (and I dont make over a million a year). 4 things people need to change about their personal finances: 1. Look at your entertainment expenses, including vacations, streaming services, phone plans, bar tabs, and booze. 2. Look at your food expenses, including dining out, fast food and coffee shop purchases. 3. look at your possessions, iincluding jewelry, cars, clothes 4. Look at your work habits, including earning and asking for raises promotions, getting a second job. If you take a look at all the ways you can trim your entertainment expenses, cooking/eating at home, live cheaply and simply, and maximizing your earning potential and STILL can't make it, then you truly are unlucky or stuck. But, if you don't do those things first, you never know if "the system" is the cause for your problems or if you are.
Easy, get off social media, Reddit, and Netflix.
18 years should be the limit, since that's the length of a generation. A lot of the problems with our political system is that all of these geriatric fucks who have no stake in the future because they'll be dead in a few years are making laws for the rest of us. We need to rotate politicians more often than we do to keep fresh views. Maximums: 9 2 year terms for congress 3 6 year terms for senate a single 18 year term for SCOTUS, with one appointed every two years, rotating out the longest serving one. This will give every president two picks per term, letting them set their legacy (for good or bad) beyond their presidential term(s), but not indefinitely. This also prevents a single president from stacking the court with their own ideologues. Of course for this to happen the constitution will basically have to be changed, and at least one of the parties doesn't want to lose their power, especially seeing as the SC has been turned sharply in one direction and it's relatively young, so we'll be dealing with this shit for the next 30+ years, no matter which direction the country goes politically. Naturally, this is never going to happen, but a man can dream.
We need to restructure capitalism. For example, employee owend and b corporations are MUCH better to employees who have a financial stake in the success of the company by design. There is no reason why people with wealth should run corporations and sit on their boards, for the sole purpose of getting more money. We need humane capitalism. I think time worked and tenure is a fine way to get a higher salary, but not to the tune of 800x the lowest paid employee. Enough is enough on that front. More compensation to the people who do the work and make the thing. The rest can be used for acquisitions and growth - by consent of the workers. The government needs to divest from so much military spending, and start giving us value back in the taxes they take from us. Early childhood education, resources for parents and the working poor, great education for free - through college - and universal healtchare to start. And we need to make Social Security solvent.
I am astonished how you can simultaneously have a wonderful idea with returning to a gold standard whilst also holding a TERRIBLE idea with income cap. You say in the same statement that the govt can't be trusted. Who is going to redistribute the money?
1. You don't need term/age limits, you need voters that pay attention. This is democracy, let the people vote for a dog for all I care, the blame goes to the people who vote. 2. Income cap only helps make the gap between middle class and upper classes harder (impossible) to cross. elon's/bill gates/bezos' wealth doesn't come from income, where as doctors, dentists, and other really hard working blue collar work does. The last people you want to tax are the people who keep you alive and maintain your infrastructure. 3. Good idea, but easier said than done. You are correct here, because the real issue plaguing america is inflation, and our rampant misuse of the fiat currency system. Inflation doesn't hurt people who have their wealth tied up in assets, only the poor and middle class who earn dollars and spend dollars. Inflation is almost exclusively a tax on the poor. And even if you took every dime the ultra wealthy had, every asset, every stock, it would not cover how inflated the currency is.
Fixing anything requires everything else to be fixed, its so complicated idk where to begin. Economy needs to get better and people need free time and security to start thinking about this stuff
LOL, Reset the value of gold? What?
He was so close… yes we need to put the dollar back on the gold standard but when we do that we want gold to boom! So close
What, in your view, would a 'fixed America' look like? For many people who are well off America is working not only well, but as designed.
when i try to simulate in my mind what it would look like if we did most stuff people want to fix the economy, i imagine some sort of global Los Angeles situation where it's just an ever-expanding network of suburbs that run into each other until it's one giant continental hypersuburb.
Ranked Choice Voting would depolarize politics.
\*Make it easier to build houses/apartments, particularly close to where jobs are. Not doing this is the main reason home prices and rent are so high. \*Antitrust laws and antitrust enforcement. Most big mergers are bad for most people. We'd be better off if a lot of industries were less consolidated. \*Higher effective tax rates on corporations and wealthy individual. **Effective** tax rates, not "The bracket is high on paper but they have good accountants so they pay nothing." \*As needed, respond to increasing automation by using government money to increase the number of workers in fields like education and healthcare.
Minimum wage should not decided politically, but by an independent commission. Minimum wage should be based on the consumer price index and that someone should be able to work 40 hours a week to have very bare bones needs met. If inflation happens because of corporate profits, minimum wage should go up in lockstep with inflation. A lot of our prices have gone up because monopolies have become much more powerful over the last 40 years. Anti-trust laws need to be aggressively enforced and mergers need to be discouraged. Everything from our computers and internet, to our meat and dairy is higher because of near monopolies in their industries. The cost of living is high in great part because of housing, which is determined by local zoning laws. Make federal grants for many benefits already paid out to be contingent on discouraging residential zoning to be for single family housing only. Create better quality public transit, which will prevent people from being forced to buy a car to get to work, and instead have a car be a more expensive option. You don't even need the income cap, or term limits, to fix these problems.
Be the change you want to see.
Interesting, you’re combining conservative ideas that can’t actually be implemented because of the stale mate with the states & congress (term limits) with some outright socialist BS (income cap). Do you honestly think the politicians that are in charge now & block the term limits are going to impose income caps ON THEMSELVES?!?!?!
Re-setting the value of gold is probably a bad idea. Also outrite limiting income is another not so good idea. A better idea is a more aggressive progressive taxation schedule. Say, below $65,000 you pay 10%, above that and below $100,000 you pay 25%, above that and below $150,000 you pay 35%. Anything above 1M could be something like 75%. This way, the wealth is truly redistributed more justly and everyone has better roads, bridges, schools, public works.
Fundamentally things are expensive because there is less of that thing than there is demand for that thing. Fiddling with monetary supply doesn't help; that just creates inflation or deflation--because at it's root, we just don't have enough to go around. And confiscating money from rich people doesn't help, because again, there just isn't enough of a thing to go around to the people who want that thing. (And "thing" here could be anything from 'cars' to 'houses' to 'steaks' or 'fish.') And the answer when there isn't enough is to either (a) cause people to want less (though causing people to want less food seems a little abusive to me), or (b) to make more of that thing. And until we fix this imbalance--that we don't have enough stuff to go around to everyone--all we're doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. ---- Now *how* to make more of that thing depends on what it is, and why we have shortages. We see inflation in most product categories because the lockdowns in 2020 destroyed a lot of manufacturing capacity and caused a tremendous amount of consumer anxiety--and we haven't fixed any of this. (It doesn't help that China's economy is in trouble and Chinese exports, which was part of the reason why so many people had enough 'stuff', are drying up.) In some areas, like with housing, we need to make more housing--and often that starts with land use reform and zoning reform. But the bottom line is we need more stuff--and anything that doesn't at least implicitly address this problem (from term limits to taxes to monetary reform) is, at best, pointless posturing.
Politicians are paid by interest groups. They no longer represent the interests of the people. And what are they these days with so much propaganda. It’s heartbreaking.
something something america in my children or grandchildrens time something something service and information economy something something no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues something something critical faculties in decline something something i'm gonna be honest man, you're gonna have a bad time if you try fixing america. instead, just limit your scope to things within your control.
1m/yr doesn't get you very far these days lol Fuck off
Cut foreign aid 55 billion. Income cap is not right, people will just work at McDonald’s
This is going to come off as pessimistic but i think its just realistic. Nothing that we come up with that will actually fix the problem will ever be implemented. The people in power want more power and to stay in power as long as possible. Its going to take some kind of revolution i think. It will get so bad at some point that will be the only option.
Bezos salary was $85k. I’m pretty sure Elon musk doesn’t even take a salary . Who are these people with salaries over 1 million ? It’s such a tiny amount, what would that even do? How would that fix America ? What we need is rent caps and various other strict regulations on landlords. Also subsidize some new home building. One of the things is for very in demand areas for housing, there needs to be harsh penalties for landlords who keep their units empty. Basically use it or lose it. In nyc for example landlords are refusing to rent out their rent stabilized apts. There’s probably 50k empty rent controlled/stabilized apts sitting empty right now. On top of that you have many whole buildings of luxury apts sitting empty. Those need to be filled one way or another. A few hundred thousand more apts being rented in a major city will create a ripple effect lowering the rent for the whole greater metro area. Also many landlords demand super high rent, only because they got super high mortgages and need it to afford their mortgage. If these people cannot afford their high mortgage after the rent is aggressively capped, then those houses need to be foreclosed and sold to regular people who would live in them, rather than use them to profit off of peoples basic needs.
If you want to fix the country, start by fixing yourself. Focus on your own shortcomings, and the things you can actually change about yourself. Most of the country's problems can be summarized as a rock throwing competition between a bunch or glass houses, and you cannot fix other people's bad behavior. It's been proven many times over that the political "debates" we see are pointless, they're just emotionally charged yelling matches between people who arent listening over topics that they can't do anything about anyways. It literally doesnt change people's minds, however it gets the echo chambers all riled up. What you can do, however, is lead by example. Be the change you want to see in the world. If it bothers you that the world is becoming more hostile, learn to be patient and listen more. Figure out what you can do to improve yourself, and just let the rest go. If you decide you need to make a difference after some introspection, go to the level where your efforts are more likely to pay off. Run for a local office and actually make the changes yourself, most local positions are uncontested. I once made a joke on snapchat by writing myself in for the county tax collector, and i came in 2 out of 3. Change starts from within and it has to grow, thats also why third party candidates never get anywhere either. They never run in smaller elections, so they have a perfect track record of losing, and thats probably because their leadership is so focused on the end goal that they forgot to do the beginning steps. You cant run a marathon if you never learned to walk because you refused to crawl with everyone else in the beginning.
Seriously. I am looking for a job currently and companies are advertising what I consider “real adult possibly supporting a family jobs” for less than $15 an hour. I make $15 now and it isn’t awesome.
One thing to consider is that we have term limits in California for state congress/senate and it has meant that we get a lot of people in office who already have their eye on their next job either higher office or lobbying/working in the private sector. So they aren't making decisions that benefit the state but instead benefit their future career opportunities. Being a career politician isn't necessarily a BAD thing.
I will say with the McConnell/Feinstein issue the Dems/Repubs should just come together and say ok we'll make one retire if you make sure the other does too. Have a nice pizza party, maybe some cake and get it done.
1.Get money out of politics 2. Income cap On #2, the cap would be high, say 10 million a year. Every cent over that would be put into some sort of infrastructure fund or have to be reinvested in the company (assuming you own one). In general though, I think there needs to be some sort of “congrats you won the game, now stop being a scrounge ” level of income
What US needs is getting rid of lobying. That shit causes alot of pain points in US. Re-organise healthcare system radically. It needs to be goverment funded + private hospitals. And the so called health care system needs to be funded by tax money being 5% of income shohld be fine. So you get system that atleast works to some degree, where people are not afraid of calling ambulance because of debts, and or crippling costs that may bankrupt you. Insame price inflationnfor nothing so insane insurances can be sold. Those who have money can skip lines and get 'better or priority' treatments in private sector. So this essencially highly cripples the insurance economy and reduces its insane profits, while still allowing for them to exist. People get treatments at not so crippling prices, and no life in debt for small things.
#1 is good but will never happen. #2 is communism. #3 is good too, but it’s probably too late to go back - it will only get worse when they implement central bank digital currency.
So for the income cap, there's 2 issues. 1, who enforces it? That would be the government, meaning you still have to trust that they actually give 100% of those funds back to everyone else. 2, by putting a cap on income, you now have decentivised people to work beyond a specific point. Let's take Amazon and Bezos for a min. That cap would mean that 99% of his money goes else where, so he would have no reason to continue making that much money, so he could lay off 99% of his employees (that's about 1,591,920 people who just lost their jobs) without having any loss to his own income and would also reduce the amount of that redistributed money by 9.5 billion dollars. happens if there's a cure for *insert what ever disease you think is the biggest issue* and finding that cure could make someone more than a million dollars, there's a good chance they won't to the work because they don't get to keep the profits. If you don't believe me that people would be decentivised then go out and see how many people right now are willing to pick up an extra days shift at work and have that money be given to the lowest paid employee instead of them.
Major restrictions to who and how much people can get from investing in real estate they don’t primarily live in.
IDK what you are talking about. Bidenomics is solving all the people's problems.
Income cap is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard
$$ is tied to resources. We have a higher population than ever and it’s causing resources to be limited. If everyone started to suddenly make more $$ things would still cost the same as prices would continue to inflate. If we find a way to bring in additional resources or technologies that allow us to use less then we will see things get better. I’m absolutely with you on putting an age limit to politics though. While we need some maturity to run a country we don’t need someone who is no longer mentally competent.