How investors can save US jobs

[ar81]

Investors are having a hard time with stocks.
Small business have had a headache with banks not lending.
Why not having investors that lend money to small businesses?

[mityno]

I want to start a fire ant farm here in Atlanta. How much can I borrow from you?

[Gene]

Show me your business plan.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by ar81

Investors are having a hard time with stocks.
Small business have had a headache with banks not lending.
Why not having investors that lend money to small businesses?

In general I support this approach. However, the high failure rate of small businesses means that it is not profitable to lend to them at any reasonable rate. Investments in small businesses should be in the form of convertible debt so that the lender is protected in bankruptcy, but still gets to participate in long run ownership if the business succeeds.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by ar81

Investors are having a hard time with stocks.
Small business have had a headache with banks not lending.
Why not having investors that lend money to small businesses?

This already exists, and it's called Venture Capital.

[Jaiysun4]

This might be stupid because its so generalised and looking at the big picture, but surely market forces (if you are a strong capitalist) dictate that all the jobs will go to India, China and emerging economies? That is, as far as big business goes.
It's up to people to keep consuming for all the small businesses to survive. My view is that consumption is too high. A shift is required in what we value in life. So job losses are inevitable until shifts are made to different types of jobs.
As for lending to small business, we should all know the banks are shafting us.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by mityno

I want to start a fire ant farm here in Atlanta. How much can I borrow from you?

I'll give you a box of sugar cubes but I want 5% of your ants sent to my enemies for the next three years.

[aelle]

Why are US jobs worth saving? Honest question here. Is a stranger being employed in Michigan better than a stranger employed in Dehli or Istambul?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by aelle

Why are US jobs worth saving? Honest question here. Is a stranger being employed in Michigan better than a stranger employed in Dehli or Istambul?

The interest may well depend on whether or not one is an American. I am, so US jobs seem like a pretty good thing to me.

Of course, I can think of some pretty good reasons that foreign countries, especially those defended by the US and NATO (such as those listed in your location), might benefit from an economically healthy US.

[Brutha]

This might be stupid because its so generalised and looking at the big picture, but surely market forces (if you are a strong capitalist) dictate that all the jobs will go to India, China and emerging economies? That is, as far as big business goes.

As far as publically traded companies goes that's true.
In Germany at least however privately owned companies employ more and more people every year.

There a book by Max Otto called "Der Informationscrash" (The information crash) that's unfortunately only available in German that among other things makes the case. Max Otto has some fame in Germany because before he wrote a book titled "Der Crash kommt" (The crash comes) before the financial crisis and still answers in interview that he isn't a prophet because what he saw was obvious and everyone should have seen it.
Max Otto is quite interesting because he doesn't belong to any school of thought that exists in the US.
I would plug him more but unfortunately he's a German thinker that simply isn't published in English

You however to have a few people in the English debate who speak for Resilient Communities such as John Robb. If you buy the case for Resilient Communities than people should invest their money locally into companies opposed to investing it into the stock market.

However building Resilient Communities is hard. Most people know what they have to do to invest money into the stock market. It's not as well known how you invest locally. SnerpGoodWord still has to write that book to tell them

Of course, I can think of some pretty good reasons that foreign countries, especially those defended by the US and NATO (such as those listed in your location), might benefit from an economically healthy US.

If the US wouldn't destabilize regions like the middle east through their wars than those locations would be more safe, not less.

This already exists, and it's called Venture Capital.

Venture Capital consists of investing into companies that have a plan to go public. It not about investing into stable small businesses.

[Piercetheveil]

Who says investors have a hard time with stocks?

Investors, by and large, are suckers. Those that do poorly in stocks would do no better in small biz investing.

And in other news...there is no problem here that needs to be solved.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If the US wouldn't destabilize regions like the middle east through their wars than those locations would be more safe, not less.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but considering that the primary threats to those locations were/are communist in origin I don't think it makes much sense to blame the US policy in the middle east. It smacks of bandwagoneering.

Venture Capital consists of investing into companies that have a plan to go public. It not about investing into stable small businesses.

I agree with that distinction. I think VC fails to reach a useful and profitable class of businesses.

[Brutha]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but considering that the primary threats to those locations were/are communist in origin I don't think it makes much sense to blame the US policy in the middle east.

During the cold war the strong presence might have been justified but I don't think it is anymore.
Look at a country like Kuwait where know a tenth of the people who said that they like the US ten year ago still say the same thing.
The amount of soft power that the West lost on the region in the last ten years is amazing.
Soft power is however better for defense than hard power.
It's a lesson that the US gets taught at the moment in Afghanistan. The US at the moment control less than halve of the territory even when their enemies don't have an army backed by a successful economy.

It smacks of bandwagoneering.

The fact that other people make similar points is in no way an argument against the point.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The interest may well depend on whether or not one is an American. I am, so US jobs seem like a pretty good thing to me.

Of course, I can think of some pretty good reasons that foreign countries, especially those defended by the US and NATO (such as those listed in your location), might benefit from an economically healthy US.

I get that's a common feeling, my question is why? Is it a matter of geographical proximity? But the US being such a large country, that hardly makes sense. Is it that you feel you share a special bond with people who have the same citizenship as you? But why something so arbitrary?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

During the cold war the strong presence might have been justified but I don't think it is anymore.

And there isn't a particularly strong US presence in France any more. There is some in Japan and South Korea, but given their proximity to North Korea and China that makes pretty good sense. As a practical matter the 'cold war' never ended there.

My point is simply that economic stability in the US is of vital national interest to a lot of people that aren't in the US. I suppose the US could simple leave the situation to the locals so to speak, and let North Korea and China have their way with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and let Russia do what it will with everything east of the English Channel. From a practical matter that wouldn't really hurt us very much.

That said, the Russians seem to be of an expansionist mind of late and by most account are still a little peeved over that whole WWII business. So if we pull out, you might want to consider moving. I somehow doubt the Polish army or the Bundeswehr would slow them down much.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by aelle

I get that's a common feeling, my question is why? Is it a matter of geographical proximity? But the US being such a large country, that hardly makes sense. Is it that you feel you share a special bond with people who have the same citizenship as you? But why something so arbitrary?

For starters, from a purely economic POV we both pay federal taxes into the same treasury and unemployment benefits are paid from that treasury. For both reasons if someone in another part of the country is employed instead of unemployed, I'm better off.

More broadly, I care about the welfare of my country, much more so than the welfare of foreign countries.

[mityno]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

That said, the Russians seem to be of an expansionist mind of late and by most account are still a little peeved over that whole WWII business. So if we pull out, you might want to consider moving. I somehow doubt the Polish army or the Bundeswehr would slow them down much.

Never ever attempt to invade Mother Russia! Her military becomes a ferocious beast defending their homeland.

But Russia has never been very impressive on the road, especially against determined resistance.

What the heck was the deal with Georgia last year (or was it 2008)? Why would we encourage then to piss off Ivan so he would bust their doors down and bloody Georgia's nose? Was that not the stupidest move ever?

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Gene

Show me your business plan.

Good one!

[aelle]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The interest may well depend on whether or not one is an American. I am, so US jobs seem like a pretty good thing to me.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

More broadly, I care about the welfare of my country, much more so than the welfare of foreign countries.

I see an argument running in circles. I do know that it's a relatively common feeling, but I'm trying to understand it. Why do you care more about strangers who happen to report to the same government as you? It seems so arbitrary to me.

Other common feelings, implicit or not, that I find arbitrary:
"I care about the welfare of my gender, much more so than the welfare of other genders"

"I care about the welfare of my race, much more so than the welfare of other races"

"I care about the welfare of members of my religion, much more so than the welfare of believers of other religions"

"I care about the welfare of my species, much more so than the welfare of other species"

[Brutha]

That said, the Russians seem to be of an expansionist mind of late and by most account are still a little peeved over that whole WWII business. So if we pull out, you might want to consider moving. I somehow doubt the Polish army or the Bundeswehr would slow them down much.

We are friends with the Russians. We even built a pipeline to get oil from them directly without having to deal with Poland. Soft power through diplomacy is a lot more effective than hard power.

France and the UK still have nuclear weapons to defend Europe.

In contrast to the US the Russians don't kidnap EU citizens. There are even Italian arrests warrants for some CIA officials over the issue.

What the heck was the deal with Georgia last year (or was it 2008)? Why would we encourage then to piss off Ivan so he would bust their doors down and bloody Georgia's nose? Was that not the stupidest move ever?

Yes, installing an US puppet to rule Georgia was sure to anger the Russians. As was the whole Star Wars idea.
We would have a better relationship with Russia without the desire of the us to "help".

I think South Korea is strong enough to defend itself against North Korea. China doesn't even try to to push it's border with North Korea further south, so I don't see the threat that South Korea faces from China.
Without US influence in the region the internal propaganda that holds the North Korean state together would also weaker and a peaceful reunification might get more likely.

With Japan and China there are a few isles that are in dispute but they have more symbolic value and aren't really important.

With Taiwan you are right. It's a nation that depends on the US to defend itself.

As a practical matter the 'cold war' never ended there.

The people who rule China today are much more decent than the people who ruled it in cold war times. They understand that stable economic activity produces wealth.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by aelle

I see an argument running in circles. I do know that it's a relatively common feeling, but I'm trying to understand it. Why do you care more about strangers who happen to report to the same government as you? It seems so arbitrary to me.

Other common feelings, implicit or not, that I find arbitrary:
"I care about the welfare of my gender, much more so than the welfare of other genders"

"I care about the welfare of my race, much more so than the welfare of other races"

"I care about the welfare of members of my religion, much more so than the welfare of believers of other religions"

"I care about the welfare of my species, much more so than the welfare of other species"

This can be generalized to "I care about the welfare of myself more than others." On a practical level, this can be useful because ultimately no one can take care of you but yourself. While many see the negative implications of this thought, the nice thing is that once you realize you are One, you intuitively know how to take care of everyone else without giving up on your own self-interest.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by aelle

I see an argument running in circles. I do know that it's a relatively common feeling, but I'm trying to understand it. Why do you care more about strangers who happen to report to the same government as you? It seems so arbitrary to me.

First off, don't underestimate the financial aspect. Since we all pay taxes into the same treasury, we all benefit if everyone else is doing well in the form of lower long-run taxes. That's a non-trivial effect.

Second, while the US is large geographically, it has a lot of shared ideology. This includes politics, language, religion, technological innovation, and a host of other subjects. Generally speaking, I agree with most of that ideology and want to perpetuate it. So it makes sense to surround myself with people of similar bent. And it makes sense for me to want them to be successful. Because if we fail as a group, that ideology will perish.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

We are friends with the Russians. We even built a pipeline to get oil from them directly without having to deal with Poland.

Funny you mention pipleines. There was also a Russian pipline to Georgia. Now the Russians own both ends. It's sort of like getting half of a pipeline for free

My guess would be that without NATO, Germany would fall to the Russians in 10 years max.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Brutha

We would have a better relationship with Russia without the desire of the us to "help".

They need an orwellian speech to make money out of weapons manufacturing.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The people who rule China today are much more decent than the people who ruled it in cold war times. They understand that stable economic activity produces wealth.

There is wealth and there is debt and they are different. Both add to assets and their creation add to GDP. US decided to grow on a debt based economy, China decided to grow on a wealth based economy. Since debt is a negative number and wealth is positive, crisis comes to US.

[Brutha]

My guess would be that without NATO, Germany would fall to the Russians in 10 years max.

You need one atomic bomb that explodes over the stratosphere of Russia to kill halve the population through starvation and give the other halve something better to do than waging war.
Killing halve is a conservative estimate, for the US the estimates are between 80-90% but I think the Russian food supply is a bit more resilient.

We already produce nuclear submarines that can lunch nuclear missiles for Israel that cost less than 2 billion a piece (you need the submarines to be sure to be able to respond with nukes even when the homeland gets nuked by the opposing country).
For a few billion we could probably buy 10-20 nukes from France.

The EU is itself a defense pact that's independent of the Nato, so we don't even need to buy nukes from France but can count on them helping to defend us without Nato.

If you take three central European countries, France Germany and Italy the three have together more than double the Russian military budget.
Even without nuclear deterrence, why do you consider the Russian military to have an advantage that would make them want to wage war?

Funny you mention pipleines. There was also a Russian pipline to Georgia. Now the Russians own both ends. It's sort of like getting half of a pipeline for free

Georgia was always in the Russian sphere of influence. I don't have a problem with Russia regaining control of Georgia and Belarus (especially Belarus is horribly governed). They are outside of the EU and the EU border can serve as a line of separation.

Then the Russians want stability. That's why they like Putin. They also have a bit of a problem with the expansion of the Western sphere of influence but that doesn't mean that they would or could attack the EU.