How to make our economy strong again.

The reason our economy is weak and the reason we have a high unemployment rate both share one big cause. We no longer manufacture our own goods. Now we can go into why manufacturing left this country, but it really doesn't matter, what does matter is bringing it back.

So here's the solution. We need a law passed that requires companies to make goods in this country in order to sell goods in this country. We need to pass this law and say to all companies...

"You have three years. After that time if you aren't producing at least 25% of the stuff you sell in the US, here in the US, you can't sell any of it here. By year six if you don't produce 50% of your product here, you can't sell any of it here." "After year nine, any product you do import to sell will have a high import tax... unless you make at least 75% of your products here. After year ten, if you make 100% of your product here, you will get a big tax break."

There will be no exceptions, no buying "offsets" from companies that have above the min percent. No bull like making 99% of the product elsewhere then putting the last screw in here. In other words none of that cr@p that gets pulled on already existing laws.

This would bring manufacturing back in droves. Right now NO tv's are made in this country. No big name sneaker companies produce here. You know that at least half their sales are to the US, plus they get a higher profit selling here then they do to other countries. That's just to name a couple. Not to mention the cars that aren't really made here. Everybody would have a job, pay rates would be high because all these companies would be forced to compete for employees. And the economy would be doing great.

Now now now, you talking CrAzY talk! It'll never work because it gets in the way of 'FREE ENTERPRISE'!

Good basic idea; but it needs to be expanded to include service industries such as call centers, tech support operations & so forth as well. Not all businesses produce a "product" that has to be manufactured.

Also, in order for this to work, US oil / energy production would have to substantially increase. with that oil marked for our market in order to drive their costs down.

But, it will never happen. The Republican party on a national level is owned lock stock & barrel by big business, just as the Democrats are owned by freeloaders & their allies in government.

Don't let them fool you, the single largest contributing company to the Democrats and Obama was BP, they gave more to them than they did to the Republicans. Fact is, both of those parties are in the pockets, DEEP in the pockets of both parties. Just like the richest people are the Democrats, they just have 'better' PR and SPIN DOCTORS to make us believe they are all 'po' folk like the general public.

No, there is no real difference between the parties in the least. When was the last large tax evasion incident that was covered? Yep, a Democrat, and he was the man in charge (still in charge) of finding those evaders, what happened? He claimed ignorance paid the money back and his friends in Congress let him walk with no jail time. Another large tax evader, Wesley Snipes, had the same large amount of unpaid taxes, and did Congress let him just pay it off with a wink and a smile? Nope, they must have watched one of his movies and that made the decision for them.

Ask yourself this? If YOU ran a police blockade and crashed your car while under the influence of a prescription drug how fast would you have been arrested and thrown under a jail? I know I would still be there myself. However, what a certain Democrat allowed to do was to be driven home, his car towed to his house and allowed to go to 'work' the next day to vote and put himself into rehab!
What a life, eh? No wonder so many want THAT life, no wonder so many have respect enough to NOT try it and be honest with themselves.

Annoyed wrote:

Good basic idea; but it needs to be expanded to include service industries such as call centers, tech support operations & so forth as well. Not all businesses produce a "product" that has to be manufactured.

Good point. That could be covered by rewording the use of the term "product" to say "product or service". That way any company providing a service, like call centers, would be required to meet the same percentages to do business here.

I also, on reflection, I have thought of some businesses that SHOULD be exceptions. Region specific products should be allowed to sell here without producing here. For example, if you want to buy a real Japanese Kimono or a real German import beer you should be able to do that instead of only being allowed US made brands or knockoffs. So I wouldn't tell some Belgium candy maker that makes all their candy in the same place they have for 200 years, "you're not allowed to sell here".

Basically protect the rights of the little guy foreign companies to do business with us, when they offer unique products or services. On the other hand big foreign companies, like say Toyota, who already have manufacturing here, or could put it here, would need to comply.

I think maybe the distinction could be drawn by the volume of business they do here in a year. Obviously that little Belgium candy company will do a lot less business here than say Hersey. Likewise Lamborghini does a lot less volume here than Toyota, Nissan, etc. So it really wouldn't be fair to require low volume foreign companies to open shop here to sell here, nor would it be fair to deny US citizens the right to buy from them.

But still, I think the basic idea is sound. Like most things though, it would take a lot of hammering out the details to make it run right.

Here is a wonderful conclusion by two economist in Ohio concerning the greatly touted stimulus.

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029042.php

So in other words it did exactly as most conservatives warned. Are these facts going to come out the next time the administration wants to spend money on a stimulus? I can't wait to see how the media spins or buries this.

ford plasko wrote:

Are these facts going to come out the next time the administration wants to spend money on a stimulus? I can't wait to see how the media spins or buries this.

Of course not. All that they will talk about is how they created jobs. Our government has a real problem with simple math, it's just like when they project a yearly budget of say 100B then only spend 50B... they start blowing about how they have a 50B surplus... the fact that they only brought in 40B in income doesn't factor into those claims. But then I'm sure you remember those imaginary Clinton years surpluses.

eber322 wrote:

ford plasko wrote:

Are these facts going to come out the next time the administration wants to spend money on a stimulus? I can't wait to see how the media spins or buries this.

Of course not. All that they will talk about is how they created jobs. Our government has a real problem with simple math, it's just like when they project a yearly budget of say 100B then only spend 50B... they start blowing about how they have a 50B surplus... the fact that they only brought in 40B in income doesn't factor into those claims. But then I'm sure you remember those imaginary Clinton years surpluses.

You mean like the 240k jobs created yet unemployment went up. How stupid can you be to believe this crap.

ford plasko wrote:

Here is a wonderful conclusion by two economist in Ohio concerning the greatly touted stimulus.

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029042.php

So in other words it did exactly as most conservatives warned. Are these facts going to come out the next time the administration wants to spend money on a stimulus? I can't wait to see how the media spins or buries this.

Therefore it is the government that is the real problem, we need to change the people running it to correct the economic issues in America.

Your idea might work in the short term but companies always find ways around laws when they feel like there profits are being threatened. And im not so comfortable about the idea of forcing companies to something like this. Im not sure this is promotes real free capitalism.

ssvs04 wrote:

Im not sure this is promotes real free capitalism.

Sure it does. If they don't want to produce here, they're free to sell elsewhere. All it really is a different type of tariff requiring them to provide at least a percentage of jobs in order to sell their goods here.

And thats probably why I feel uncomfortable with your idea. Never liked the idea of Tariffs.



Ron Paul

It's always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don't work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods.

If one truly believes in free trade, one never argues a need for reciprocity or bureaucratic management of trade. If free trade is truly beneficial, as so many claim, unilateral free trade is an end in itself and requires neither treaties nor international management by politicians and bureaucrats. A country should promote free trade in its own self-interest — never for the benefit of someone else.