Harold Martin10
Won't those same people promising you a better life today be the very ones leaving you behind tomorrow, once the government kicks inflation into gear and effectively drains the value from your paycheck?
@splIt’s the same answer as before: wouldn't this endless money printing policy have to change pretty quickly if we aren't looking to trigger hyperinflation? Honestly, who could be dense enough to miss the obvious and sprint headlong into that disaster, knowing exactly what happens when you overprint the currency?
@William Anderson5Do you honestly expect the government to micromanage every single individual project? That’s just not how it works. They aren't there to get bogged down in the weeds of every minor task. Their job is to set the broad strokes—to provide the high-level vision and the guiding principles that steer the country in the right direction. They hand out the instructions, lay out the framework, and then step back. That's it.
Centralized control over what, exactly? The only thing you can truly manage from a central hub is money. And that’s still exactly how it works today—except now, the power rests in the hands of financial authorities who weren't even elected by the people.
Here’s my take: I’m suggesting that a market economy should operate on a simple principle—we only have as much money as our products are actually worth. I’m not entirely sure how the velocity of money is currently managed, but GDP and the money supply really ought to move in lockstep. In this model, the government would handle the quantity of money, while the market—meaning us, the people—determines its actual value. If you look at it that way, where is the "central planning" everyone complains about? To me, it just looks like interdependence.
The government essentially tries to act on the will of the people by subsidizing the types of production where citizens actually recognize value and are willing to pay. That’s the only way the market truly thrives and purchasing power stays steady, or at least doesn't crater. At the end of the day, voters decide whether the administration met their standards for competence based on one thing: the trajectory of economic growth or decline. That path determines the election results.
Why isn't that an option anymore? Because it’s always easier to point fingers at external factors—blaming some global crisis or a sudden tightening of credit markets. It's a classic move: passing the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. If we actually held the reins and decided our own destiny, we’d have a much clearer picture of whether we’re succeeding or failing on our own merits. But here's the catch: most citizens don't wrap their heads around the complex machinery of the profit world. Consequently, they can't accurately judge the financial performance of the government, mostly because the government isn't even the one running those processes in the first place.
Start a grassroots political party—one member, one vote. Simple enough, right?
First, you bring them into power. Then, you carve the US up into five distinct regions, assigning each one its own specific strategic objectives and a unique vision for development.
Step three involves assembling a dedicated task force. Their job is to evaluate whether the product actually holds water, based on two specific pillars: the technical documentation provided by the industry and the results of their own independent market research.
If we find ourselves facing a budget shortfall for subsidizing promising new projects, the move would be to resort to printing money. To keep inflation from spiraling out of control, we’d have to play it extremely safe—printing only the bare minimum amounts and keeping production capacities at rock bottom. Think of it like releasing test balloons into the atmosphere just to see how the market reacts before committing to anything major.
Look, if demand spikes, subsidies follow. Then production capacities ramp up, and suddenly you’ve got the money printing presses running overtime. We’re talking about relatively short windows here—the gap between issuing a subsidy and actually getting production lines moving is usually within a year, often just a few months. In that timeframe, the market hasn't even had a chance to get properly disrupted by the influx of all that newly minted cash.
Looking at these five regions, it’s pretty obvious that we need to start slashing through the bureaucracy and trimming down public administration immediately. It's common sense.
We could slash the sales tax to give everyday Americans some breathing room and actually boost consumer spending, then balance the books by hiking corporate taxes and income tax. Of course, we wouldn't just slap a flat rate on everyone; we’d scale those income taxes based on what people actually bring home. It’s a simple enough concept, really.
We should make things easier for employers to actually hire people. I’m talking about opening up the door to unlimited labor without all the heavy-handed union interference. Basically, workers should be able to jump into a job and walk away from one just as easily, without getting boggedusly tangled up in endless paperwork, legal battles, or bureaucratic red tape. Of course, that doesn't mean they're helpless—if an employer refuses to pay up, you should still be able to hit them with a wage garnishment or whatever legal lever exists to recover unpaid wages. But beyond that? Simplify the whole employment relationship. Scrap the mandatory minimum wage and get rid of those other stifling regulations. Let the market breathe.
My buddy is actually pulling double duty, working two different roles within the same company. It was a massive headache for his employer to navigate all the legal hurdles and HR red tape just to make that arrangement possible. Honestly, it’s a total clusterfuck, par excellence.
"War veterans with disabilities can't work while receiving their pensions"—give me a break. It’s the same old nonsense, claiming someone isn't "allowed" to hold down two jobs at once. Honestly, what kind of logic is that? Give me a rest.
Think about a workforce that’s mobile, fast-paced, and agile. Imagine a system where you actually have the freedom to choose your own career path, provided you meet certain benchmarks—basically, showing real effort and measurable progress. It’s about the government actually incentivizing you to get an education and pursue what you're passionate about rather than just filling slots. We need to talk about slashing through the red tape and simplifying the bureaucracy entirely. Then there's the matter of fiscal control: we should be cutting some taxes while hiking others to balance the scales. Most importantly, we need radical transparency. I’m talking about making both the decision-making process and all data regarding government spending fully public. We need real-time, online databases detailing everything from state expenditures to the financial dealings of every single corporation and individual. It’s a necessary step toward something resembling direct democracy.
These are just a few of the moves needed to finally unleash the tiger within us. It all starts when people stop being terrified of taking their destiny into their own hands. We need that mindset where an employee can look at an exploitative boss and say, "Get lost, you trash; I'll find someone else to hire tomorrow," or conversely, for the employer to tell a lazy worker, "Beat it, you slacker; I'll have a new hire by Monday." If we actually reached that level of agency, corporate efficiency would skyrocket. You'd end up with companies staffed only by people who actually want to be there and who provide real value to others, rather than a bunch of cronies who only landed their jobs through connections and coasting on favors.
It would also give the average Joe a chance to step back, take a breather, and realize that if his career is hitting a dead end, he doesn't have to just grind it out indefinitely. If there isn't an open position at his current firm, he could actually pivot—retrain, get certified, learn a new skill—all while being paid to do it. It’s essentially an investment in oneself. Of course, you’d have to pay back that investment later by paying higher taxes than someone who managed to nail their dream job on the first try.
If you have a solid plan and a killer idea, that’s usually enough to get the government to buy in. They might toss some cash your way, hand over some land to help scale up what you're building, or hit you with tax breaks just to get production off the ground.
Anyone with a solid idea and the drive to actually put in the work can make it happen.