To NOT prevent creative destruction or new business emerging, the government should do is DON'T do any stimulus. Let the economy metabolism work naturally, so that the ingredients occupied by those unhealthy, fragile, bloated, ineffective companies can be released to cultivate others.
Then the economy system can regain her liberty to adjust herself to survive in this world.
Reminding that all resources are limited, any government's stimulus no matter monetary or fiscal, is kind of redistribution and can cause deep impact that not revealing obviously on those economical figures like GDP, CPI,etc.
It is possible that the revival of a company like Heathkit may do more to create technology jobs by getting kids interested in electronics and subsequently becoming entrepreneurs, than any jobs program might do.
Cool, let me offer my 2nd hint (mentioned b4 somewhere).
US need to reform it's political system, ie introducing a PM position.
Current US system put all burden on the shoulder of one man - president. He need to be a genius in everyfront. unfortunately you always get a good lawyer.
a good lawyer could be just naive in macro economics as we are seeing right now. After couple of years of learning and failing you switch to a different one and repeat.
Look at china and russia, they both got someone good at laws etc to handle diplomatic, political stuff and someone experienced with economy to handle job creation.
hope this can enlighten the poor american ppl..
Eloquent as always, folks!
For BobSound, here's how I approach that "unknown." If we were having this conversation in 1975, we'd be saying "how are we going to replace all these steel jobs?" We could never envision in the course of a few short years that electronics design would expand out of the mil-aero world with places like Route 128/Silicon Valley coming into prominence. Nor, I'd argue, would we have said "you know? in a couple of decades there will be armies of young college graduates who will work endless hours, sleep under their desks, eat free pizza and take long ping-pong or bocce ball breaks encouraged by their employers all because they love coding."
That's one of the few things that keeps me optimistic in dark times: We can never predict the unknowns.
Right now, we're entering (broadly speaking) the era of apps on readily available electronics systems. Next will be open-source hardware (Arduino). What happens when you put that power in the hands of millions of people?
I agree with Bert, and it's not only the president, but the federal government overall that is powerless to actually create private sector jobs.
The best thing Washington can do for the economy is to stop trying to engineer the economy -- stop giving favors to some, penalties to others, and stop trying to steer the direction of economic development.
Green technology initiatives are a great examples of misguided government attempts to steer economic and technological development. However much many of us might want these to succeed, however good it might make us feel to reduce our impact on our environment, the marketplace -- not government policy -- will ultimately decide on success or failure of these initiatives.
Even with a half billion dollar loan from the government, Solyndra couldn't make a viable business out of rooftop solar panels. Will other companies make viable businesses out of smart meters? Home automation and energy management? How about all-electric vehicles?
Only time will tell -- time, and the cumulative effects of millions of consumers voting with their wallets.
I'm having a hard time visualizing where the new jobs are going to come from. The computer changed everything. We may be a knowledged based economy, but most of the people do it themselves. There is no need for all those people that used to do the research. I wish someone could tell me otherwise, but I just don't see much of a jobs recovery in the near future.
The problems now being faced by the Eurozone, IMO, should have been predicted when the Maastricht Treaty was signed. At the time, I couldn't figure out how it would work. Why? Because all these different countries, with quite different cultures and work ethics, were agreeing to NOT allowing themselves to adjust their own currencies any longer. So you had to believe that all the currencies were suddenly going to be valued exactly the same, compared to one another.
In the US, we have the Fed, and we also have total mobility of the workforce. In Europe, although mobility is much better than it was 40 years ago, you have very different cultures with very different values, and people want to hold on to what they know.
It's a little bit like tying together the throttles of a whole fleet of cars, then expecting them all to run equally well. This can only happen if the terrain they are running on is identical. If it's not, some will stall, while others will exceed the speed limit!
I would be astonished if anyone expected anything at all to come out of a politican's speech, in this particular regard. Confound it, guys, he is not a magician, he is not a businessman, he is not an enterpreneur. He was elected to be our PRESIDENT, not our dictator.
We lead. He represents us, our interests. Yes, he is the Commander in Chief. That is a military title ONLY. The Commander in Chief *of the DoD*. Not of the citizens.
The best he can do is to propose and encourage government policies that are more friendly to business. The government is mostly clueless about running businesses, and he, for one, has no experience at all in this. Why would anyone think he can fix the problem of jobs? I don't get it.
Technology is transforming the society since Industrial Revolution. There will be job disappearing and there will be job created. The job market or economy as a whole acts like an ecosystem. According to study, most jobs are created by SMB. If the administration sets the right tone and direction of where US economy goes and acts right, jobs will likely be created. On the other hands, if the middle class can spend, more products will be created and new jobs will come. Lately, there have been voices of strengthening the middle class. Here comes an article for your enjoyment.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.