[space-on-s]

Its pure folly to ignore it. There are 3 possible responses to skyrocketing unemployment - 1) Ignore it, and use the military to suppress the ensuing riots (as we did in the 19th and early 20th centuries), 2) Put them on an economic feeding tube indefinitely... or 3) Create jobs programs.

There is a very simple reason we haven't created jobs programs - because the wealthy elite of America are against it. High unemployment increases corporate profits, and further concentrates wealth into the top 1%.

As for your point on corruption and the blurring lines between government and corporate entities - that's true. But to suggest that a company wants higher regulation to hurt the competition is just as silly as saying Warren Buffet wants higher taxes to prevent other people from getting rich.

The current cries for Austerity ignores economic history. Since WWII business and banks have been increasingly deregulated, and taxes have continued to be slashed. Not only has this not spurred economic growth like Conservatives claim, our GDP growth has actually DECLINED dramatically, and wage growth has stagnated for 30 years.

As for the cries for privatization, this again ignores history. We forget WHY these functions were put under government control in the first place. Early "subscription" fire departments degenerated into protection rackets (Pay the fee for the fire brigade... or you might have an "accidental" fire at your house). We left the gold standard only after a hundred years of recession after recession, finally culminating in the Great Depression, where even the assets of the rich weren't safe... not to mention the risk of getting lynched by an angry crowd of starving blue collar folks. Social programs for the poor and unemployed were established after private charity failed miserably to support them.

Furthermore on social programs, again, history has shown it doesn't work. De-regulation and massive tax cuts by Bush and Obama... according to Conservative logic, private donations should be going through the roof, right? Wrong. Many shelters and soup kitchens have been forced to either start charging fees, or shut down altogether, from lack of funds.




So many fallacies... I'm not even sure where to start. There are more job applicants than there are jobs. That is proven fact. Major corporations are laying off workers to concentrate their manpower, and slashing employee benefits. Also proven fact. Unemployment persists, but corporate profits remain at record highs. Also PROVEN FACT. Its nice you found a website with a lot of job offers on it. That's real cute. But last time I checked there was a lot more than a million unemployed people.

Make no mistake about it, some regulations out there are a corporation's friend, why else would there be such a thing as "lobbyists"? You think all these big corporations are contributing vast sums of money to politician's campaigns because they're feeling especially charitable? Now who's being silly?

My point is there are so many regulations out there today it's absolutely impossible to tell which ones have a tangible benefit and which are redundant, interventionist, and oppressive. Deregulate in one area and ten more take its place in others, which is why individual regulations are so ineffective. No one can realistically enforce them all, so nobody honestly tries too hard. I think you've been misled to believe (and I may be partially at fault for this) that it is the goal to strip away everything government and replace it with a sucking void. It's not entirely accurate. Yes I believe we need to hit the big reset button, but then to replace it with limited, effective, enforcible regulation, which is out to protect the individual rights and liberties of free enterprise through Constitutional authority and to let simple supply and demand function as it ought. Simply put, I never see any measure the government taking towards enforcing ethical commerce ever becoming more effective than the simple prospect of eventual Chapter 7/11 when corruption and malfeasance is discovered. It's time we started allowing it to happen, really, we've never experienced it in full force our lifetimes and part of it is simply due to the fact that we've consistently transitioned away from it from the moment of the idealogy's conception. Our market is free enough that we can see working examples of supply and demand functioning correctly, and in those markets specifically we experience the best prices for valuable, efficient services and products provided for trade. Since government cannot keep up with information technologies at the least we experience many principles of the free market from that specific field, and thus, considering the complexity and intricacy of many technological innovations, we get excellent prices and services for this hugely trending industry simply because it is a requirement for companies to stay on the leading edge to do so. The more government inserts itself the more the equilibrium becomes unbalanced, and the result is a trend away from best price. Even people with a freshman-level understanding of economics understand that principle, and I suspect your comprehension of the subject is much higher than that.

Government intervention in the form of stimulus for the purpose of creating jobs is turning out to be swinging a bat blindfolded in a dark cave, it rarely ever connects and accomplishes little more than a brief upset in the balance of the system and actively enables the failed practices of failing businesses, many of whom happen to be political cronies of the people earmarking the fund, and the saving of any employment whatsoever is temporary at the long-term detriment of the company itself and it costs the government, and thus the American taxpayer, significantly. The reason the poor and the middle class feel so disparate from the very rich has a lot to do with the dillution of our own currency. Collectively we have all (and even a bit more) of the money that we had years previous, yet the incremental rise in costs throughout the years, practically outside of our direct notice contributes to the fact that we're beginning to feel what we do have is never enough, and sometimes that is accurate, especially coupled with extensive uses of credit to make purchases beyond our liquid capabilities, which is another subtle means to deprive ourselves of our wealth. Of course the money supply has grown so much larger, the wealth must have gone somewhere, for the rate of increase overall far exceeds our own cost of living increases provided by our own employers, which leaves realistically the very rich, due to the trickle down nature of inflation.

For any business to be successful, and add value for shareholders, it will be their eventual goals leading towards expansion, and thus job creation. The more government upsets the fluid nature of commerce the more it hampers their ability to do that. As the intervention forces those being intervened upon to move into self-assessment and survival mode which actively deters that very thing, much like a rise of a new competitor in their market. When the competitors rise, at least they create jobs, and the business being competed with is forced to innovate or give up market share. When government intervenes, neither of which occurs.

Responsible financial practices, both at a personal and business perspective, are never things a government can realistically enforce, even under the most strict communist practices. I see spending and borrowing as an addiction at a level or worse than anything chemical, and individuals and businesses need to learn to develop pragmatic practices where they more effectively control their assets. Once they do so they have the opportunity to save their earnings, and in the cases of businesses apply them towards expansion of their enterprises (which doesn't happen to work without creating a job for somebody, although it may be a position that has a market value lower than our own minimum wage or a union's concept of "fair wage". )