The fix for the economy

       Alexander Hamilton, (Ten dollar bill dude) is credited as being the first American protectionism theorist. Let's look at some of his ideas.

1. "Protecting duties." (Tariffs.)
2. "Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions." (Outright import bans.)
3. "Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures." (Export bans on raw materials needed for industrialization here at home.)
4. "Pecuniary bounties." (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. "Premiums." (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. "The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty." (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter and we can industrialize.)
7. "Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures." (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. "The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, .and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery." (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. "Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities." (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. "The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place." (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. "The facilitating of the transportation of commodities." (Good infrastructure.)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/america-was-founded-as-a_b_713521.html)

       The basic idea here is to make sure American industry was given preference.  We forgot about that in the 80's.  In the 90's the factory workers, who now had no factories to work in, switched to construction jobs.  In the 00's those jobs began to dry up, as an economy that produces nothing cannot support itself.  So far, in the 10's we are seeing crippling unemployment, and the jobs that are being created don't pay as well as what was lost.  What do we do about it?

       Well, we begin by reinstating Hamilton's brilliant ideas.  That action alone will not immediately fix everything, but needs to be done.  Then we begin to assist the growth of companies that make pre-fabricated and modular homes.  Our workers mostly came from factories and switched to construction, and so are uniquely qualified for this.  The homes, or modules, are the same size as a standard shipping container.  This allows easy transport by road, rail, or ship.

       But to whom do we sell?  Our trade partners in Europe have regulations about historic areas, and their own protectionist policies.  But, much of India and Africa have a need.  We could provide them expertly built and wired homes, giving them no need to develop that particular set of skills domestically, and perpetuating the need to import homes from us.

       We would have a great export business for homes going in no time.  It would be a status symbol to have an "American Style" house.  This would set up further demand for American built goods.

       Once these trade partners are cemented, longing for the good stuff America can provide them, we leverage our true strength.  Food Production.  We do it better.  We do it cheaper.  We do it so well, we pay farmers to not grow food, just to keep the prices up.  Those prices are still a fraction of what the same food would cost in Europe.  

   

       I would point out, as well, that protecting American interests should not ever be a partisan issue.  Many say protectionism is something that the right disdains, as it hurts trade; and the left embraces, because it helps unions.  If it helps unions, that is only because they are covered under the broader category of "American".  If it hurts trade, the trade being hurt was not to our advantage anyway, so let it be hurt.  American dollars for sub-standard foreign goods is never a good trade.  

       Of course this idea is expressed facetiously.  Well halfway facetiously.  We do need to protect our interests better.  

In January the sale of medical devices will be taxed.

        I have taken it on myself to write our senators in Illinois, about an upcoming vote to repeal a tax.  This tax will begin in January of next year.  It will tax the sale of medical devices.  The tax will be paid by the manufacturers.  Because apparently, if you are a lawmaker, you are either so daft, or so arrogant, that you don't realize the cost to hospitals will go up by the same 2.3% you have decided to tax the manufacturers.  I wonder how the hospitals will make that back?  Yes, folks, it is another indirect tax they are hoping we wont notice, or will blame the hospitals and  not Washington.  

       In a change of format, I will provide the text of the message I sent to our Senators.  The House has already voted 270-146 to repeal this tax so, for now, they are in the clear, on this issue.

Message below:

       I have already written on behalf of my company to you.  I am speaking now as a private citizen.  A 2.3% tax on the sale of medical devices, paid by the manufacturer, will only be added to the cost of the sale.  Hospitals, who can least afford it, and are currently being pressured by new regulations, an increase in the percentage of non-paying clients, and pressure from the insurance companies, (also caused by Washington), will end up paying this indirect tax.  This type of indirect tax should be made unlawful.  It is dishonest and insulting to our intelligence.  In this case it will also either cause the collapse of our healthcare infrastructure to accelerate, or the loss of even more U.S. manufacturing jobs.  I would say thanks for listening, but there is little chance you will ever directly see this. So to the staffer who does read this: please relay my profound displeasure over this tax.  I understand there is a vote coming, naturally after the November elections, to repeal this.  This unfair, unscrupulous, and frankly immoral tax should be repealed immediately, regardless of the winner of the Presidential election, or the political climate.  

End Message

       Here are some web pages that allow you to message the staffer who might eventually summarize what you have written into a thumbs-down.  (Or thumbs-up, you might want to pay more for healthcare.  I'm not you.  I don't know.)  At any rate, here is how to futilely attempt to have your voice heard.

http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=comment_on_legislation   For Mark Kirk

http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact              For Dick Durbin.

Feel free to copy-paste my message.  It might be taken to mean a level of organization, and maybe even scare them into doing their jobs for a change.  

Thanks for listening.

This is what lower standards buys us.

       I am not, I repeat, not talking about politicians.  I know, the title suggests it, but I assure you, I am talking about school.
       Back in your grandparent's day, colleges and universities had entrance exams.  Each college has it's own.  In a time when a fourth grade education was enough to land you a job where a single income could support a family, college was something for the privileged few.  If you couldn't pass the entrance exams your family better have enough money to donate a new science wing, or you didn't get in.  This preserved the school's reputation, and kept out the people out who wouldn't pass anyway.  There was rampant racism, and sexism.  This was not a perfect system, as some of the best and the brightest were denied an education that could have benefited us all.
       By the time our parents were of age to go to college there were more options.  One could earn a "Basic liberal arts" degree, and land a good job based on this "qualification".  Schools were still using tests, and there was some sexism, and some racism, but this was offset by affirmative action programs.  Student loans were not yet the predominant method of paying for education.
       By the time we get there, college is widely available, hideously expensive, and financed with loans.  This is because the average tuition over the last few decades, has increased at four times the inflation rate.  This is not simply adjusting to reflect the value of a dollar, nor is it merely covering costs.  
        Despite the number of colleges available to the average student, and the availability of an online option for nearly all of them, costs have risen.  Let me see if I remember the law of supply and demand from school.  Hmm... as supply increases, costs decrease?!  That means that colleges are somehow immune to supply and demand.
       Since the 40's there has been more than a six-fold increase in the number of people attaining four-year degrees; and many more college choices, and yet the cost of each degree is RISING, relative to inflation. (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/us-education-attainment-from-1940-2008/)  This means that the people who are obtaining degrees are not merely the rich or gifted, as it was historically.  Rather, the defining characteristic of a college graduate today is the willingness to bankrupt themselves with student loans.  Intellect has little to do with it anymore.
       Since we have lower admission requirements, we needed to lower the difficulty of obtaining a degree.  That cheapens the value of each degree.  With a degree worth less, the earning potential of a graduate is less, relative to where it was in the past.  Still better to have a degree than not, but it no longer makes you anything special.
       Forget a national healthcare program.  Let's work on "free" education, based on ability, for as long as someone cares to pursue it.  (you can even use the same arguments, "It's a right", "They do it in Europe successfully", etc...)  We need to prioritize education.  Actual education.  We are currently importing engineers, and are churning out business majors.  Which of those innovates?  Which of those creates new products?  Which of those drives economies?  And which one: "Collaboratively synergizes new opportunities, while leveraging market position for maximum stockholder value"?
       (Can you smell that?)
     

Chicago's Inspector General

       The inspector General made some recommendations to the Mayor to achieve financial stability for the city.  I was not aware that such things fell within the auspices of his job.  No matter.  I am optimistic.  Not because some grandstanding appointee, politician makes idiotic statements.  Not because some of these ideas were clearly contrived simply to make the others appear sane by comparison.  (Yes, I mean the toll on Lake shore drive)  Not because of this flagrant wagging of the dog.
       I am optimistic because within minutes, both the media and the people were saying that this was clearly done for the reasons listed above.  The people of Chicago, despite a history of being assumed to be stupid, are becoming quite a bit harder to put one over on.  I will stop short of saying that the people are wising up; but at least they have become so jaded and suspicious of government that they see past the more obvious smoke screens. Making the few of us still working pay higher taxes and fees, only makes class warfare the norm. 
       What no one seems to realize though, is that there is only one way out of this financial mess.  You see the welfare economy we have put in place after WWII relied on constant exponential growth in order to function.  We allow our jobs to be outsourced, and the people who used to work in factories all transitioned to construction.  This is something we all should have seen coming.  The solution, you see, is to bring back manufacturing.  Also, unlike what the President and his cabinet say; building roads, schools and bridges are not real jobs.  The true wealth of America is not our schools roads and bridges.  Those are symbols of our (now former) wealth. 
       The true wealth of America has always been that each American was allowed to work as hard as they want, to achieve what they want.  Our wealth was that we built what the rest of the world needed and wanted.  The only road back to that level of prosperity is protectionism.  Our jobs are more important than Chinese jobs.  That is the way every other country works: by treating their interests as more important than anything else.  Why are we not doing the same?  It does no good for me to yell for everyone to "BUY AMERICAN!", because we would only be able to buy food then.  And we would need to check sources first. 
       We need to set ridiculously high tariffs on imported goods.  Completed or not.  We need to set in place a 51% ownership rule like every other country.  (All companies, or subsidiaries operating in the country must be at least 51% owned by citizens thereof.)  We need laws that protect the American worker.  Corporations only outsource because the law allows it.  Change that and we will fix our entire economy.  Then, and only then, can we help the rest of the world.

Gasoline as a Utility?

       I am just going to jump right into this.  Pros first.  1.  Gasoline companies are clearly in collusion and fix prices, creating massive windfall profits, year upon year.  (This is obviously just my opinion.  I have no proof, but the profits and price adjustments are factual regardless.)  2.  We all require gasoline to get to work, school, and stores.  This is also true for those of you on public transportation.  Why do you think that costs so much?  3.  We already have natural gas as a regulated utility.  Natural gas and petroleum come from the same wells, and go to the same people, eventually.  4.  Other countries are buying gasoline before it is even pumped out of the ground, in massive quantities, to insure a low price for their people.  This is yet another example of the failure of the U.S. government to look out for the interests of its people.  5.  This should have been addressed long before health care.  Well or sick, we all have to get to work.  Sad is someone who can't afford healthcare.  Tragic is that same person unable to afford transportation to get to work, to enable them to feed their family, and pay for healthcare.

       Now for the cons.  1.  Our utilities are also a sick joke.  We are the ones it is being played on, and the punchline is prices being raised anyway.  2.  Who will regulate this new utility?  the same money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics who currently could only agree to shove of the debt ceiling problem until after the next election?  (They at least had the common courtesy to pretend they were holding out for principles.  One of them must have gotten their hands on a dictionary first though; to see what the word meant.)  3.  The payment structure would need to be worked out.  4.  Gas stations could no longer sell cigarettes and other sundries.  (Like Com-ed, and Nicor don't sell you things like appliance insurance and...  oh wait.)  Although that would be more of a pro, since then we would need more convenience stores, and fast food places.  It would create jobs, opportunity, and growth.  Hell that alone should be enough to carry this argument. 

If there are any members of congress who see this I apologize.  To call all of you "money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics", is a broad generalization, and it is quite unfair.  After all, some of you are women.