Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Richard Branson's plan (the super-rich businessman everyone seems to be clamoring about). Fodder for discussion obviously.
On Branson:
Agree that you can find people who would like to be less productive. I don't mean that as a swipe or to have any negative connotation. If you free them from thinking they will lose their job for not working 60 hours a week and 52 out of 52 you may find some that prefer more time off. This would have to be balanced with costs of having 2 workers do what 1 was. I'm sure there are plenty of administrative costs that are government driven that could be reduced to help this along.
Kudlow's follow-up was leading and a douche question. Branson didn't mention anything about government in his initial answer. Ah, he hits on my worry point in this follow up answer. Also I noted how Branson answered that he must not have explained himself well enough, that is how a true leader communicates. He doesn't allow Kudlow to lead him or agitate him, calmly reitrates his previous answer and Kudlow has to move to another talking point.
Even though it is a talking points it is the most pressing issue in my mind, and that is freeing the business owner to make decisions. To remove the burden of taxes and regulation. This can be dne in an intelligent manner, then the business owner MUST hire, and MUST use their capital to invest in American jobs.
It's funny cause his last answer was going to be the first part of my response. JP Morgan did bailout the US economy back in the day, but at that time business had the money and a good balance of power. The federal government had yet to fully embrace its role as dictator (hyperbole), and feel this has alot to do with people either looking to government, or looking to peel away at government as the solution.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."