MLM Directory

Another humble note-ish on Economics in its entirety... sort of.?

I'm trying to put this in the most efficient way possible. This wasn't for fun, I'd be writing a poem if I wanted "fun." It's long again. I hope it's worth it, and accurate enough for you naysayers. ---------------- It's not going too great right now. America’s economy is fucked, and it was even before the recent crisis. Here’s the problem. Our gross domestic product (GDP) is screwed. But wait… that doesn’t make sense, does it? After all, we’re around first to second globally when it comes to GDP, coming in at about thirteen trillion dollars. That’s great, but there’s a problem. We’re also in a massive pool of debt: ten trillion dollars worth. When your national debt comes close to your GDP, something’s fishy. But how did we enter such a huge debt? We’ve always been in debt. Only the conservative democrat Andrew Jackson managed to significantly reduce it, but that was very short lived when the Panic of 1837 occurred. Since then, it’s dramatically increased for the most part, especially in the past twenty years. Ronald Reagan was a huge part of this, which means, yes nitwits, Reaganomics doesn’t fucking work. The “trickle down” theory only concentrates the wealth on the richest members of America. The idea was, and still is, that if tax breaks are offered to the rich, they’ll invest in things like charities, factories, etc. Nobody seemed to remember that America is now part of a global economy, so the rich will probably invest more in areas where they can get the highest return/profit, outside of the U.S, which is why the policy has failed on a very large scale. So when McCain says he’s offering tax breaks to the rich because by some miracle that’ll help out small business, he’s just flat out wrong. Clinton did increase debt, but not by much. Rather, he leveled it out. How? His idea of achieving fiscal responsibility: “Pay as you go.” What this meant was that if taxes were cut, so was spending. Revenue increased extremely, and everything seemed to be going just magnificently. And then Bush came. Following the failed concepts of Reaganomics and neo-conservatism, President Bush Jr. managed to increase our debt to GDP ratio up to more than 60%. Of course, the Afghan War (by the way, what happened to that?) and the Iraq War ($10 billion a month while the California-sized country itself has a $79 billion dollar surplus) did contribute. But should we have been there in the first place is the main question. One is yes, the other maybe, probably no… actually, almost definitely no. So what can we do to fix the economy? When Obama says “change comes from the bottom up,” it’s not just a catchy phrase. It’s an economic plan. By increasing the productivity of workers across the United States, global capital will naturally come to us if we can increase our net import/export value from the GDP. We export more than we import… that’s bad. If we work on more “American based” products, and not rely on China so much for, well, um, everything, that would definitely decrease our debt as of now. It wouldn’t obliterate it, but it would significantly lower it. Reducing energy costs is also another major factor. The idea is to avoid oil in it’s entirety by focusing on alternate energy sources: wind, solar, tide/hydroelectric, etc. Nuclear power is just too risky, and offshore drilling just doesn’t work. It would only have a major effect in 10 years. The argument then becomes if we had used offshore drilling when Bush became president, none of these energy issues would’ve happened. That’s great, but this is now, and there’s no point in waiting another ten years using the product that got us into the crisis in the first place. However, the main way to increase productivity is through health care, i.e. Universal Health Care (UHC). Whether it is single payer or multi-payer, single probably being the best choice, Americans wouldn’t have to worry nearly as much about the hellhole that is private insurance. Premiums would be almost non-existent or even totally gone. This means employers won’t have to pay as much as before. Jobs would increase because of the new portability of the increase, and so would wages because, again, employers are paying less for health care, so they have more freedom. Businesses would end up prospering just because of UHC. In fact, the National Coalition on Health Care released a report in 2005 showing a single payer system for UHC could even save America $1.1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Our current system using the free market guarantees us that we can never get UHC because the free market makes sure private insurers don’t insure those who really are sick because they’re of such high cost. So, what’s the conclusion? … You tell me. Comment.

Public Comments

1. "In fact, the National Coalition on Health Care released a report in 2005 showing a single payer system for UHC could even save America $1.1 trillion dollars over 10 years." Several problems with your essay, this being one of them. You haven't convinced me why this is Bush's fault aside from quoting labels used - "Reaganomics" and "trickle down" Further, what does the UHC have anything to do with increasing economic productivity?