<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "The Third Option" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/793]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1737497]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[my take is that different facets of society have different abilities. you cant get blood from a turnip.

it drives me crazy when talking heads ask 'what will romney do for the economy?'.

economic success is a function of the private sector. looking to politicians to solve this is like trying to get blood from a turnip.

perpetuation of civil liberties is a function of legal system and law enforcement. national security is function of military. the brains of the operation, politicians, can impact our civil liberties (only in negative way, they cant make something out of nothing) and our national safety.

looking to politicians (govt) to solve economic woes is asking for a decrease in real liberty.

they can help but only if they transform themselves into the vehicle that controls prosperity, the private sector. crossing that line means a massive reduction in everyones liberty.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1737497]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dilbertolie]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732669]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;And economists generally agree that cutting government spending is the equivalent of pulling the plug on a comatose economy.&quot;

Huh?  I don't get this part.  Maybe you could do a blog post explaining this one, since none of my other friends who hold this POV can manage to explain it any better than &quot;just because, ok?!  Shut up!&quot;

To clarify, the question I'm asking is: what would be so catastrophic about cutting government spending?  As just one example, say we took last year's budget and just cut every number by 10% across the board.  Would that contribute to an economic collapse?

More extreme, what would happen if we just took the (say) year 2000 budget and used that?  (I didn't go look up the details of the Y2K budget, I just picked it as &quot;back not so long ago when we were spending a lot less.&quot;)

Why is less spending a death knell?

Or are you just trying to trick us, again, you pinko-commie-Liberal, you!?  ;)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732669]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from piglet]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732544]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott,

I never comment on your blog posts, but this one I'm particularly capable of providing feedback about because I'm a foreigner engineer who has a high-paying job in the U.S.

I came here with an O-1 (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) visa, and lots of companies keep hitting me on LinkedIn to try to get me to work for them. I have several friends like me in my native country, Brazil, and I actually think your idea is good and could help attract a lot of top talent to the U.S.

I do think that the bureaucracy involved in enforcing the rules would end up costing too much (and putting resources into supporting bureaucracy that doesn't produce anything useful for the economy). But maybe this part wouldn't even be necessary. For example, even not being forced to, I already make a point to by American products and support local businesses as much as I can, because it's my way of giving back to the community. Just make it easier for engineers with demonstrated abilities to move here, and the local economy will be automatically get a boost (both with better products being launched and us spending our money locally). 

In Brazil we are not big fans of DIY, and here in the U.S. we happily hire local people to mow our lawn, paint our walls, and clean our carpet without being required to.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732544]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Jibbley]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732465]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[There's lots of places the US Government could save HUGE amounts of money:

a) Stop building crap like F22 Raptors which are completely useless/unnecessary

b) Stop all the &quot;wars !$%*!$%*!$ eg. the war on drugs achieves nothing, costs a fortune billions of dollars ends up on Colombia instead of the USA because of it.

c) The TSA

c) Stop all those pointless wars in Afghanistan. With the money they've spent on that (about 10 trillion) they could have achieved nuclear fusion, solved the world energy crisis, housed the poor, and generally made the entire world a better place.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732465]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from green_gables]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732417]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hello Scott,

Not that I don't think your idea is a great one, but it might not be entirely yours.  I think a very wealthy lady in Australia has beat you to it! Gina Rinehart (Australia's richest person) has just recieved agreement from the government that she can bring in up to 1700 skilled foreign workers so she can get a quick start on her $9.5 billion mining project.  It's a new type of visa for skilled workers who will work in remote areas (not many bank owned rental houses in those parts) .  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/anthony-albanese-admits-labor-mps-should-have-been-better-consulted-on-visa-deal/story-fn59niix-1226381728462
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732417]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732260]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@RMan - I'm with you there. Government should be spending on infrastructure and possibly research, they're some of the few things the federal government is really supposed to be spending money on, and it's possibly the only one that creates jobs *and* makes things better for the future.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732260]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RMan]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732259]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Sorry, too much micromanaging which the government rarely does well and I doubt it is enough to make a measurable difference in the economy.  If you go that route the simple thing to do would be to allow employers to hire outside the US those types of jobs can't be filled for x number of months. 

The real way to improve the economy is how the US got out of the Great Depression (without the war part).  There was so much gov. spending during WWII that there was really no unemployment once the US became fully involved in the war.  The war spending required rationing and price controls which means there was way too much spending to stimulate the economy, so yes I believe the government can take spending too far which is obviously not what I'm recommending.  

There needs to be spending on infrastructure (bridges, roads, locks, ports...) and research such as Alzheimer's disease that can benefit everyone for decades.  This spending needs to be temporary until the stimulus is no longer needed.  To pay for it without adding to deficit would require everyone earning over a certain amount (say $250,000) to pay at least what they did before the Bush tax cuts.  There will be simpletons that say increasing taxes on the people earning money in the higher income brackets will hurt the economy, that would be a false statement because every dollar taken would be sent back into the economy to create something for everyone which would then turn over many times instead of being sent into the stock/bond markets which do little to stimulate the economy (which I have personally done since having an extra $1000 from the reduced SS taxes currently in place doesn't impact my spending).
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732259]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from vtjumper]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732257]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I agree that solution 1 is being proposed - not with the intent to kill the economy, but with the intent of shredding the social safety net.

However I don't know of anyone proposing solution 2.  I do know of lots of economists proposing deficit spending *until the economy gets going on its own* at which point you should cut back.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732257]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732256]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[(The &quot;people who caused the problem&quot; are the voting majority. That's who is in charge of regulating, taxing, and spending. 99% of the rich didn't screw anyone. -- Scott)

Who were the voting majority supposed to vote for in order to not cause the problem?

I mean, fair enough to not blame *all* of &quot;the rich&quot;, but trying to put the blame on *voters* is ridiculous - it doesn't make any difference if voters voted for Kang or Kodos. We can't vote for a different system, we can't vote for different candidates, we can't vote for regulating or not regulating, we can't vote for taxing or not taxing (and if we could I'm pretty sure &quot;tax the ultra rich&quot; would be getting the votes!), and we can't vote for spending or not spending. All we can do is vote for Party A or Party B, neither of them tell us their plans so it's like judging a blind taste test before tasting, and there's actually the same brand of dish detergent in both cups anyway.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732256]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from fawn247]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732255]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Nice idea.  The only problem is that there are a lot of people who aren't even smart enough to UNDERSTAND this.

[It's an interesting psychological phenomenon. Any idea that doesn't fit the binary political worldview is as good as invisible. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732255]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from CeilBlu]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732254]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, i generally like your post, its clever, but i have a strict improvement on your plan:
The government would ease restrictions on immigration, but only for the most skilled workers (engineers and stuff). THE END

Remember that me breaking a window, &quot;creates&quot; a job for the window repairman, BUT is likely a net negative to the economy.
This point is KEY. Don't ignore hidden costs... everything else you suggested is breaking the window except for easing restrictions on immigration.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732254]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from priceymark]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732253]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't agree with all of the ideas you laid out, but I don't think that's the point. The point is that you're throwing out creative solutions to our problems and creativity is desperately lacking in the US government. Adams for president!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732253]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from prjaj]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732252]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Big problem:  you're assuming highly skilled folks are so desperate to live in the US that they'll put up with all sorts of ridiculous conditions, the humiliations of the American bureaucracy via the visa system and so forth. Would an American put up with all this to move someplace else? No way. It's the same here. I'm staying home, in India.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732252]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from IamNotSpock]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732250]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Interesting.  When I'm logged in, I can see my comment (one that is somewhat critical).  When I'm not logged in, it vanishes.  

Why would that happen?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732250]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from webgrunt]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732249]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[dugfromthearth:

I basically agree with you, but I don't think you are aware of the magnitude of the problem.  Increasing revenue by a paltry few billion dollars is not going to make any difference.

What's ridiculous to me is that corporations are able to claim natural resources as their own.  They had nothing to do with creating the oil, why do they get to say that they own it?  Naturally, they deserve compensation and reasonable profit for extracting it and refining it, but the resource itself, as all natural resources, should belong to the nation as a whole and the monies derived from its sale should go to the nation.

I also favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting deficit spending, but it's kind of impossible to add this right now--the deficit spending should be very low before enacting such a law otherwise the impact would be too severe.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732249]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from pand0ra]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732248]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;A prosperous country can afford to have many workplace laws and regulations to keep everyone safe.&quot;
&quot;My economic plan is for the government to pass laws ordering banks to turn all foreclosed properties into a specific type of rental.&quot;
&quot;The government could also require the foreign renters to hire local housecleaners&quot;
&quot;The new laws would also require that the foreign renters give all of their banking business to their landlord banks. &quot;

OMFG. Let's also create more laws to tell people what they can or can't eat, how to wipe their butt, what flowers they are allowed to smell, and how much fun they can't have. Legislating every little aspect of our life is a good way to put us on the path to being the most moronic country in the world. Stick to the Constitution and don't mess with it (i.e. Everyone has the right to property, life, freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Social programs and moronic laws are what got us into this problem in the first place. Creating more laws is not the answer.

&quot;Even a gridlocked and constipated government can make decisions when death is knocking at the door. &quot;

The way to fix that is to get rid of the socialist/Marxist that is currently in the Presidency.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732248]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from arunka007]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732229]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[IMHO, the only viable third option I see is to play the longer game and invest in education and infrastructure. Improve the quality of school education in US and ensure the next generation of American college students are as competitive or better than the immigrant students the universities and industries are craving. Improving the country's competitiveness is the only way in which we can avoid a future catastrophe.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732229]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Drowlord]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732209]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[A few neat ideas.

Solar is pretty questionable, though... Panels have finite lifespans, the charge controllers, batteries, and sine wave generators are expensive.  Batteries have very short lifespans ~ 5 years.  You often seem to think that there's a workable solution in alternate energy that can be wrestled through, but for the most part, it's still fantasy.

A person using solar energy today is actually burning more fossil fuels than a person just living on the grid (largely because of the energy cost in manufacturing solar cells, batteries, etc).  If it takes a gigajoule of petroleum energy to produce half a gigajoule of solar energy, the net effect is that you're burning petroleum twice as fast.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732209]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Weyes]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732204]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Dear Scott,

I know you have caveated yur article saying there are bound to be flaws in it. So I am not going to nitpick here and point out something you already know. But one core point - you are eroding the attractiveness of the US for skilled foreigners by increasing the indirect taxes on them. The laws you suggest will make the whole scheme unattractive to any foreigner and thus falls your entire proposal.

The economy can be fixed only by setting the basics right once again. As long as you continue to operate in a system where the flaw is in the basics of say the financial system, the healthcare system, the social security system, problems will never get resolved.

Sometimes its best to let things wash off and start with a cleaner slate. Its the cycle of time. Happens to every economy. Look at Britain.

- Weyes]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732204]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from BryanK2]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732202]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I have the third option, too. And it comes in a form of a question: Why not force the people who created this crisis (because of their greed) to pull us out of it?

That means taxing the rich extensively for a period of 5 years or give them an option to invest 25% of their wealth in common good (infrastructure, schools etc.) today, if they oppose big government. 

Or the government could take over the subsidized banks who continue to give outrageous bonuses to their executives. After all, the only ones who have the money right now and could invest are the rich (or so called job creators), but they're not doing so because &quot;the economy is weak&quot;.

The point I'm trying to make is two-fold:

1) The rich have the money, but refuse to invest it.
2) If you force them to choose between what's bad (for the rich people) and what's even worse, they will choose bad. We just have to give them a choice - do they want to be a little less rich or to lose everything (in a revolution, let's say)?

After all, if the poor need to have two jobs just to stay afloat, you could use a little socialism!

(The "people who caused the problem" are the voting majority. That's who is in charge of regulating, taxing, and spending. 99% of the rich didn't screw anyone. -- Scott)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1732202]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
