Upcoming elections and the next Cabinet's economic platforms

...advocated for federal interventionism centered on tax relief for businesses, direct subsidies for new hiring and investment, and launching new federal investment projects—specifically targeting energy, transportation, and logistics, which remain top priorities for the American government.

...the necessity of aggressively incentivizing investment through various measures, such as exempting reinvested profits from taxation while imposing heavy tax burdens on dividend withdrawals.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

...he advocated for federal interventionism rooted in tax relief for businesses, direct support for new jobs and investment, and fresh government-led infrastructure projects—specifically within energy, transportation, and logistics, which remain top priorities for the American government.

Ashley Collins4 said:To understand our current political and economic landscape, you have to look at the bigger
picture if you want to figure out how much room this or any future
Cabinet actually has to move.
It’s pretty obvious that under our current system of PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP—where a capitalist, whether they like it or not, owns their
assets, their means of production, and essentially rents labor—there is a built-in
flaw. By owning things, they gain power over those very things, especially when
they distance themselves from the Federal Government.
Basically, the government ends up disarming itself. It can't claim total
authority over the entire National Territory because private
property rights are untouchable.

Clearly, we can only discuss what a new or old administration can do
within its own backyard—essentially within a perimeter it sets for itself. And that
perimeter is shrinking every single day. These shifts are just a shell game:
plug one hole by opening
another, then realize that second hole is fresh and wonder if you need a third one to plug it, and so on.

If the government wants to jumpstart the economy, the only way forward is to step up
as an investor in new companies to secure those 150,000+ new jobs.
We can't just sit around waiting for foreign investors; we're out of time.
The opportunities are endless: the automotive industry and all its
sub-sectors, electronics, appliances, IT, heavy manufacturing, defense,
and so on.
But does this mean the Cabinet is acting against its own principles? The idea is that the State
is a terrible economic manager, so what would it even do with massive corporations?
Following the usual systemic inertia, it would probably just end up selling them off again
because they eventually become competition for the capitalists. So, what now? How do we move forward?
The line has to be drawn clearly: there must be a boundary between the interests of the
Federal Government and private interest.

Ashley Collins4 said:To understand our current political and economic landscape, you have to look at the bigger
picture if you want to figure out how much room this or any future
Cabinet actually has to move.
It’s pretty obvious that under our current system of PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP—where a capitalist, whether they like it or not, owns their
assets, their means of production, and essentially rents labor—there is a built-in
flaw. By owning things, they gain power over those very things, especially when
they distance themselves from the Federal Government.
Basically, the government ends up disarming itself. It can't claim total
authority over the entire National Territory because private
property rights are untouchable.

Clearly, we can only discuss what a new or old administration can do
within its own backyard—essentially within a perimeter it sets for itself. And that
perimeter is shrinking every single day. These shifts are just a shell game:
plug one hole by opening
another, then realize that second hole is fresh and wonder if you need a third one to plug it, and so on.

If the government wants to jumpstart the economy, the only way forward is to step up
as an investor in new companies to secure those 150,000+ new jobs.
We can't just sit around waiting for foreign investors; we're out of time.
The opportunities are endless: the automotive industry and all its
sub-sectors, electronics, appliances, IT, heavy manufacturing, defense,
and so on.
But does this mean the Cabinet is acting against its own principles? The idea is that the State
is a terrible economic manager, so what would it even do with massive corporations?
Following the usual systemic inertia, it would probably just end up selling them off again
because they eventually become competition for the capitalists. So, what now? How do we move forward?
The line has to be drawn clearly: there must be a boundary between the interests of the
Federal Government and private interest.

ruggeddriver70 said:Alright, give me just one single, actual example of a "new startup" that a Government led by either Jadranka Kosor or Zoran Milanović would actually invest in. And honestly—would this "new startup" even turn a profit, or would it just be another massive money pit?

Ashley Collins4 said:I’m speaking generally about the direction we need to take. Honestly, I doubt we'll see it happen,
whether from this administration or the next. When you have a government that only knows how to
liquidate assets—they've basically sold off the family silver at this point—it's hard to expect
them to start buying back what they already sold, let alone investing in
new companies to manufacture actual products.
Maybe it's because that cycle is baked right into the foundation of the system. You don't expect a
government supposedly oriented toward capitalism to suddenly veer off course,
take charge, and say, "Enough. This clearly isn't working. I'm taking control now."

Any party that actually ran on a platform like that during an election would win, hands down.
Miraculously, nobody is stopping them from doing exactly that!!! (Well, maybe someone is).

Harold Nelson6 said:The reason big investors aren't flocking here isn't because they're "evil"—it's because they see that the math just doesn't work under our current setup. If a private investment doesn't make sense right now, then a government-backed one won't fly either. The fix? We need to build the right environment so these deals actually become profitable—then it won't matter who pulls the trigger (though, personally, I don't think the government should be the one cutting the checks).

Carl Foster8 said:The Country exists to set the framework for economic development, not to run the whole show itself.

Ashley Collins4 said:You hit the nail on the head, but that's exactly where the issue lies. Who's supposed to actually execute that plan?
The people doing the work—private entrepreneurs—are all looking out for their own interests. They aren't
obligated to answer to anyone. How much they produce, how many units they turn out,
that's on them. Based on what they can manage, what the final price tag will be,
whether they export or not—all of it is their business. Paying taxes, setting wage levels, deciding
how much to pay employees... it's all up to them.
If the Government promises to create jobs, they basically put themselves in a corner where they have to
beg every single private business owner to hire just one extra person
just so they can keep their promise. It’s an illusion of control over companies they don't even own.
When interest rates need to drop, you have to sit down and negotiate with
the bankers. You can't just bark orders at banks and act like they are
tools in your pocket. That's just not how it works.

If the Government promises to create jobs, they're basically putting themselves in a position
where they have to beg every small business owner to hire one extra person
just so they can keep their word. These are companies they didn't even control to begin with.
When interest rates need to drop, they should be negotiating with
bankers instead of trying to command them, as if the banks were under their direct control, etc., etc.

Ashley Collins4 said:There’s another angle here—comparing the climate from fifteen years ago to what we're dealing with today.
Nobody sells off a top-tier racehorse when everyone's chasing it.
We cashed in on foreign investment back when it actually paid off.
Now, an investor is looking at a struggling economy that needs a massive jumpstart, but everyone
just wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. I was reading The New York Times in Washington, D.C. today, and they're reporting that
major international fast-food chains are closing up shop because the margins aren't there. What exactly do we expect
from people trying to build major corporations, especially when they're buried under taxes owed to the
Government? And the Government doesn't care about those losses, because nobody goes to war against themselves.
When the Government invests in a company, everything looks cheaper at the start.
So, we have no choice but to follow the old saying: look out for number one.
Things will turn around eventually.

Carl Foster8;33010931 said:Who exactly are private entrepreneurs supposed to answer to, and why?

There’s a fundamental flaw in the capitalist model:
the capitalist is perpetually at odds with the Government because of their own self-interest.
That interest is incredibly simple and can be boiled down to half a sentence:
"I want to be rich."
Every future dispute regarding payments—to anyone or anything—is
rooted in that single claim, which then becomes an absolute principle.
The logic works like this: "If I give you less, I keep more."
And I want what I want, God knows what you get to keep, and if you even get anything at all. It's ME vs YOU,
it's EVERYONE vs THEM, and since they are just a minority, WHO CARES WHAT THE MAJORITY GETS???

The same logic applies elsewhere. Higher prices mean I get rich faster.
Wages for workers can't go up, and you can't hire new people, for that exact same reason.

No amount of forecasting helps here, because that isn't how management works.
Don't forget that the Government rules by passing laws, yet manages by following its own
regulations. To actually make that work, there has to be a system for oversight and punishing
those who ignore those laws. That's the whole point.

I think I've made myself clear. I'm responding to the entire text in the post; it's just a failure of manipulation.

Harold Nelson6 said:Are you talking about Daily Fresh?
That isn't some foreign chain—it's domestic. And at the helm is Borislav Škegro, who is the perfect example of a "businessman" who never would have amounted to anything if he hadn't tangled himself up in politics. Then, following his political "career," he's simply incapable of running anything; everything he touches falls apart. Daily Fresh had all the ingredients for success—if nothing else, it had those fantastic locations (which no one else could get unless they were Škegro) for its restaurants.

Why am I bringing up Škegro? Because it proves that "entrepreneurs" born out of the government system don't know how to survive in a real market. There's no point in the government trying to "create jobs" if it's just going to end in a disaster like this.

What you're advocating for is really just a planned economy—where the government invests, hires people, pressures banks for lower interest rates, and manages everything.

I'm sorry, but we know for a fact that doesn't work.

Ashley Collins4 said:"I want to be rich."

silverfox91 said:The government is "helping" us by hiking the fee for property deed copies from $20 to $17 and jacking up court appeal costs just to thin out the crowds. It’s their version of problem-solving: instead of actually doing the WORK, they just make everything too expensive to bother with.