I think the minimum wage should be enough where a forty hour a week job gives me the dignity to look my child in the eye and say we live in the greatest nation in the world. A job that does not make me feel as though I'm on a hamster wheel always being expected to sacrifice a little more, run a little faster, so my superiors can buy their third house, second yacht, and vacations where ever they please. So yes, I believe the minimum wage should be a dignified wage.

    A fair share is enough that when a family member works forty hours, s/he is able to put food an the table, pay the utilities, have health insurance, school supplies for their children and save enough for retirement, while the spouse is able to stay home and do the house work.

    A fair share is enough that I’m able to pay my taxes just as efficiently as the middle class Americans do. If the manager of a company paid his line workers enough to pay for the needed infrastructure (taxes), then wouldn’t his tax liability be less? Wouldn’t he feel more inclined to grow his company, fueling the economic expansion we all crave and need?  Economic growth, in my opinion, is the process of having full employment. Economists say that full employment is an unemployment rate of two percent. This rate should be applicable when every worker works one full time job. A worker should be counted as the primary wage earner in a household. Having one person in a household responsible for earning a living and the other responsible for managing the home could expand the job market. If the family chooses to have both of their grown ups or more able bodies work then they should be taxed at a higher rate.  This incentivizes families to take their fair share and penalizes those who believe they deserve more, with out working harder and smarter.   

    A working class, Superiorly loyal, Objectionably Bright (SLOB), slob should be as valuable to his nation as those who clime the ladder of success. If his actions are as valued as those of his superiors, who knows, maybe he will take pride in the American way.

A Resource based economy is better than a fed governed fiat system. But the Fed is always better than gold or silver backed currencies.

Fiat money exists because it allows for easier trade with other nations. Say Japan makes Blue Ray Players, and America grows corn. The fiat money supply allows for one Blue ray to equal x bushels of corn. Or what ever Japan is willing to trade as their goods, is how many of our goods we will sell to them. This is what governs the exchange rate. But this configuration has allowed speculators to devalue and manipulate money. And special interests have been allowed to capture the Fed. I find these to be problems. Can I get a whup, whup! Therefore, if our money is tied to all of our production, not just gold or silver, and not susceptible to regulatory capturing, then speculators would be forced to create value in our economy, instead of betting high or low and fidgeting with the machinery. A Resource based economy is better than a fed governed fiat system. But the Fed is always better than a gold or silver backed currency.

 I believe the dollar should be pegged to the GDP of units sold, divided by the number of the population between 16 and retirement age. If the GDP is 365,000 units sold per year, and the population has a workforce of a 100, then the value of a credit is 365. The credit is then divided by allocation to the most productive industries. Say we have fifteen industries, (or fifty states), we divide them by 365, which equal twenty one. From this point, you make a graduated line graph with fifteen points and twenty one being the median. a straight line from 1.1 to 15.15 The affluence ladder would still be intact, leaving its demise for another generation. It would also incentivize industries to out produce and sell, in order to be at the top. Therefore, the market can allocate responsibly. If we attach our currency to just precious metals, than someone, ant namin’ names, can hoard them, or corner the market. Having the money pegged to production, ensures that if someone corners a service or product, the market can invest elsewhere, without the whole system stagnating. The fiat system has reached the point of hording and has left the FED with no alternative but to devalue wealth. If wealth was a function of efficiency and not money, then the motivation in each industry becomes selling stuff more efficiently. This would also stifle management and labor disagreement, diverting shutdowns in the factories. Industries become the unions, industries become the community and they become the political arm of the people. Those that are smart and hard working get more of  the credit allocation than those that enjoy life and are not so down with hard work and over thinking.

     The fiat paradigm allows speculators to devalue and manipulate money, but if our money is tied to all of our production, not just gold or silver, then speculators would be forced to create value in our economy. Venture capitalists would find it in their interests to create more sustaining ventures.  Instead of betting low and selling high, Wall Street would be interested in raising GDP units sold.

 I just know from history that having wealth dependent on one product is a recipe for disaster. In economics it is called the resource curse.

 I believe that gold as the only decider of wealth is the same as the resource curse that has plagued many nations. If you put all your eggs in one basket and the basket's bottom falls out, then you go without eggs. Also, if you allow the wolf to guard the basket, he is going to eat the eggs.

The “live and let live” mantra of my fellow Americans has me wondering how well that philosophy has served us; it is too akin to apathy in my opinion. Take for instance a conversation I had on Facebook with some friends of mine. After my sister-in-law returned from Wall Mart, I opined as to why people “are waiting in the parking lot at 11:59, Thursday night, and stammer in to be the first person to buy cheap, consumer products at Wall Mart. My sister in law, for what ever reason, made it there last night, and her impression was that it was a circus of children arguing with other children, with children in tow, for the sake of children's Christmas.”  In the conversation I began with my opinion—that “I honestly believe that people partake in Black Friday because they are so lonely that they enjoy the human interactions. The fighting is just an outcrop of the way they deal with confrontation in the homestead. Or they honestly believe that their fellow human is going to think more of them because they have the money to burn, which was an older theory I held.  But who knows why people do what they do. Maybe it is just the rush of confrontation…” After being rebutted by another respondent, “to think there are millions of people that were born into countries that don't have a damn thing...they would consider each and every one of us 'rich snobs' for spending time criticizing our fellow citizens on Facebook (materialistic communication devices) on how they choose to spend their time/money. I say lighten up or join the peace corps so that the hypocritical opinions are fully realized. Happy holidays to those that CHOOSE to see how fortunate anybody living in this country truly are....I wonder what the starving kids in Somalia will get this holiday season?” , I am left with further pondering.

I am never impressed with the “you don’t like this nation you should move” card, and any one of its multiple deviations. In fact, I believe that the opposite of that sentiment should be the norm. If you love your nation, you should hold it accountable in every facet of life, economical, political, and yes, social.  I believe that the “me Generation of the ‘80s,” is a direct outcrop of live and let live. To take this point one step further, the live and let live mind frame, coupled with economic self interests, is the direct result of the one percent paradigm. These people are not social deviants; they are just too synchronized with the spirit of our age.  So, does that make me a snob because I articulate ideas and preferences that are not the norm? Last I looked, I live in a nation whose people value multiple perspectives or was my interpretation of the First Amendment wrong. Now, the non-starter rebuttal I experienced won’t deter me in my pondering. Most of what the person said, I agree with. Volunteering in a professional manner, I.e Peace Corps, is a good one pronged attack on a three pronged serpent. A well informed voter, an intelligently frugal shopper and worker, and a tenacity to hold your fellow neighbors’ behavior accountable are the hall marks of a rational citizen.  The “Love us or lose us” line is usually the last vestige of an inarticulate argument.  But the whole experience has me questioning the logic of the autonomist individual which our agrarian ancestors loved so much.  

I’ve read, maybe to my detriment, many books on the subject of the American cultural waste land, and I believe that the live and let live mantra coupled with the dying societal respect found in the culture leads to live and let die.  

    Now, I’ve been hearing a lot of horse manure about going back to the gold standard. As if global trade could be facilitated with precious metals. A resource based economy makes more sense than a segregated resource based economy. If you are going to use commodities to regulate the money supply, might as well use all commodities, capital and other economic activities to manage the supply of money. Chasing the rainbow worked well for America when under every mountain there was a pile of gold. But today, there is just too much economic activity in the world to allow one commodity to govern it all. The best analogy I can think of is the house hold budget which is fitting considering the word “economics” derives from a Greek word meaning house hold management. A typical home is cluttered with food, entertainment, water, precious metals and children to do chores. Where would the logic be if the matriarch of the household said, “All my clutter is useless except for my spouse’s jewelry and the metals in the home”?  Well, the first thing that would happen is the one without the jewelry would no longer be the ruler of her castle. And the one who horded the metals would have the upper hand. Also, I believe the house would be gutted for every piece of Aluminum, copper, brass, while the computers and other forms of digital entertainment would be smashed, so as to sequester the new wealth.   Goodbye ruler; hello dictator. He, who has the gold, makes the rules would be the new motto of the home.

    I believe the best way to have a fair economy is to divide the tax code into five brackets. Those that make the least pay five percent tax, the second bracket pays ten percent, the third pays 15 percent, the  fourth pays twenty, and the final bracket pays 25 percent. The bottom bracket’s minimum wage ought to be governed by the political process, while all the other brackets’ wages should be at the discretion of the employers. This would incentivize people to learn and expand their horizon while creating revenue for the nation. To insure we don’t become an aristocracy, the top bracket should have an estate tax of 95 percent and it should go down five percent per bracket. This way would incentivize parents to raise their children properly, while enticing them to spend more feverously while they live.  Now the numbers I chose are negotiable, but I believe the balanced concept is the most fair. And this tax would be put on assets not employment. Every year a person or house hold would have to pay their fair share. If our congress members did something like this, I believe the fed would no longer be forced to devalue our money, while governing the actions of the affluent. Now some of this idea I picked up by different posts here, and in other sites, but in my mind I believe it is the fairest. 

It is funny how most people envision the political spectrum as a line going from a left wing, ultra bleeding heart socialist to a radical, right wing, market oriented, fascist. But after a few months of being open minded to both sides of the debate, I believe a better analogy for discerning political power is to see it as a ring. The zenith of the ring is the dividing line that separates red from blue. In a functional democracy the ring would be half and half, with the split on the top. As seeds of discontent fester, the split, like a magnet looking for north as the person spins in a circle, chases around until it reaches the nadir, being ether socialist or fascist, which are two perspectives of one totalitarian regime. I have always discerned the two radical factions by whose boot is on whose neck. Fascists want the business community writing laws no matter who is hurt, while socialists want laws written to consolidate their power in government.  Both radicalizations leave the average man at the whim of welfare or market forces; both dominions make it hard for the average person to cope. Because even if the parties chase their tales (sic) around the ring, the average person stays true to his up bringing. Those that stay true need to compromise with other people who stay true to their beliefs. As the old nursery rhyme goes: ring around the rosés; pocket full of (talking points); ashes; ashes, we all fall down.” In my opinion, the only way to get the split back to the top and silence the radicals is to compromise as citizens and stop allowing radicals to dictate our future, while being true to oneself and the process. Even the radicals have America’s best interests at heart; they just see it from their perspective.     

The Fed has the nation’s best interest at heart. This means that in times of stagflaition, low interest money barrowing, high unemployment times, and high debt to gdp ratios, it becomes imperative that the fed flood the market with currency. If it chose to raise interest rates, by taking dollars out of the system, at this juncture, that would balloon the already high debt to GDP ratio.  Think about it like this: right now as things stand, those that hold substantial debt, the 99%, will find that once the dept is paid off at the end of the loan, the inflation will eat the profits of the loan originator. If the inflation grows quicker than compound interest accumulates, the bank looses money. This should create incentives for bankers to invest in America. If they don’t, then they shoot themselves in the foot. The Fed can’t allow the interest rate to rise because it would bring the day that we would have to raise the debt limit closer, and we all seen how that went last time it was done. But while it is putting more dollars in the system, it is deleveraging the bank's profits. From this perspective, I think the Fed is doing a great job. There are a lot of people loosing wealth because of the Fed’s actions, but call it bitter medicine, not treason.

There are three tools in the tool box of economics. The Fed, taxes and employment are the ingredients for economic growth.  When employment and taxes stay unchangeable, the fed, in the past, would lower interest rates systematically through putting more money into the system, enticing businesses and consumers to spend. Because of the industrious class’s concentration of wealth and the loss of faith in the system, nobody is expanding business so the fed is forced to quantifiably ease the value of money. Another way of stimulating growth would be for ordinary people to start businesses of their own. The third way is a bit messy and involves the people to democratically re distribute the money in the system. No evil, greedy boogie men are out to ruin the nation. Just honest to goodness mistakes were made, and now we are in a state of redistribution, in my opinion. No?