Alternative Ways to Stimulate the Economy?
- Thread starter Fremmer
- Start date
toybox99615
New member
lots of options
THere are a lot of options the president could have suggested. But it would not have had the political impact this plan has. This plan screams: look I cut taxes again and gave you back your money. Aren't republicans good for promoting this idea in the White House!
Many of the other alternative would just not be as great a publicity stunt. Eliminating the fuel tax might get you the same net difference in the cost of goods you purchase. But where the publicity actions on that as American get a few cents here and there. Even if those few cents add up to more than the great free money plans.
Many people could benefit just as much by just lowering the tax tables and getting the rebate one pay check at a time. But again no political gain in that idea.
They could eliminate a whole lot of these add on taxes to phone bills and other items. And the list goes on and on. But in the end we need the big rebate title to capture major media coverage and boost the political notoriety of the big tax rebate.
THere are a lot of options the president could have suggested. But it would not have had the political impact this plan has. This plan screams: look I cut taxes again and gave you back your money. Aren't republicans good for promoting this idea in the White House!
Many of the other alternative would just not be as great a publicity stunt. Eliminating the fuel tax might get you the same net difference in the cost of goods you purchase. But where the publicity actions on that as American get a few cents here and there. Even if those few cents add up to more than the great free money plans.
Many people could benefit just as much by just lowering the tax tables and getting the rebate one pay check at a time. But again no political gain in that idea.
They could eliminate a whole lot of these add on taxes to phone bills and other items. And the list goes on and on. But in the end we need the big rebate title to capture major media coverage and boost the political notoriety of the big tax rebate.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I guess there's another one: Even up the trade tariffs with foreign countries. This may be a short term loss because foreign countries may not want to pay the same price in tariffs as we do. But in the long term they would come to their senses that having items to use/sell in their own country that's made in the USA is a plus for them. Kinda like selling a Chevy/Ford truck there. We make the best trucks and it wouldn't be long before the demand for our trucks would pick up steam again.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
NO
theinvisibleheart
New member
Investing in education?
Checkout the YouTube video "Stupid in America"
YouTube video "Stupid in America"
Best way to improve education (which would have a positive long term return on economy) is via vouchers. The reason is because it introduces market force into education.
Here is one way to think about it: do you think long lines at PO(Post Office) is the result of lack of money or lack of competition? If you noticed, during last couple of years, PO started offering new services and features such as tracking and variety of options for faster delivery. It's all due to indirect competition it faced from Fedex, UPS, email, fax, etc.
If USPS/PO was privatized and monopoly on postal service was eliminated, it would result in much better services.
What studies shows is that there is very little cause and effect b/w expenditure per student and student accomplishment. Other countries spend fraction of what US spends per student and student learns much more.
In Europe, vouchers are quite common as the YouTube video "Stupid In America" shows. When public education money tracks the student(i.e., instead of school getting fixed sum based on school district, its income is dependent on how many parents choose to send their children to that school), public schools start behaving like private schools and actually start being accountable to the parents.
Usu. (with few exceptions), parents have the best interest of the children rather than the public school administrators and the public school teachers.
Private schools in US cost on average, 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of public schools on per pupil basis. Yet when children from single parent families in inner city ghetto was chosen by random to attend private schools by lottery via privately funded foundation money, it was shown that even children from severely deprived environment started learning more. What this shows is that private schools can outperform government (public) schools at much lower cost per student, even taking account, dysfunctional and highly disadvantaged student population (chosen by random via lottery).
Great educational link:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/schoolchoice/ShowFaq.do
--John
Checkout the YouTube video "Stupid in America"
YouTube video "Stupid in America"
Best way to improve education (which would have a positive long term return on economy) is via vouchers. The reason is because it introduces market force into education.
Here is one way to think about it: do you think long lines at PO(Post Office) is the result of lack of money or lack of competition? If you noticed, during last couple of years, PO started offering new services and features such as tracking and variety of options for faster delivery. It's all due to indirect competition it faced from Fedex, UPS, email, fax, etc.
If USPS/PO was privatized and monopoly on postal service was eliminated, it would result in much better services.
What studies shows is that there is very little cause and effect b/w expenditure per student and student accomplishment. Other countries spend fraction of what US spends per student and student learns much more.
In Europe, vouchers are quite common as the YouTube video "Stupid In America" shows. When public education money tracks the student(i.e., instead of school getting fixed sum based on school district, its income is dependent on how many parents choose to send their children to that school), public schools start behaving like private schools and actually start being accountable to the parents.
Usu. (with few exceptions), parents have the best interest of the children rather than the public school administrators and the public school teachers.
Private schools in US cost on average, 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of public schools on per pupil basis. Yet when children from single parent families in inner city ghetto was chosen by random to attend private schools by lottery via privately funded foundation money, it was shown that even children from severely deprived environment started learning more. What this shows is that private schools can outperform government (public) schools at much lower cost per student, even taking account, dysfunctional and highly disadvantaged student population (chosen by random via lottery).
Great educational link:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/schoolchoice/ShowFaq.do
--John
theinvisibleheart
New member
have to look at factors of economic growth
You have to know what are relevant (significant) factors of economic growth.
Factors of economic growth are:
1. strong property rights and rule of law (already exist in US)
2. low regulatory barrier to business(state dependent to some degree)
3. low transaction cost (tax, regulatory cost)
4. stable currency (already exist in US)
5. communication infrastructure(trade makes us more wealthy and communication infrastructure makes trade possible)
6. lowering of trade barrier
7. ending subsidy (I believe there are like 5 crops that are still subsidized)
8. existence of capital market (already exist in US and we probably lead the world in this)
9. labor mobility(fairly high in US compared to Europe) but could be higher once group benefits (employment benefits) are taken out
I would focus on lowering transaction cost. In US, unlike most countries, underground economy is quite small. Transaction cost includes tax, cost of complying with regulation, hidden cost of litigation, including litigation insurance, etc.
I would further lower or take away both long term and short term capital gain tax to spur more investment. Furthermore, I would take away the corporate tax(since business can't exist perpetually on loss, it's passed onto consumers in form of higher prices on goods and services).
Two major long term financial threat are Medicare (more urgent than Social Security) and Social Security. The reason why they are long term threat is due to the way they are funded (PAYNGO). There is no underlying trust fund like private pension plan or investment fund. Benefits paid out today are funded by people paying into the system today. Because the ratio of workers to retirees are getting smaller and smaller due to population of retiree growing at a faster rate than the workers, it's not sustainable.
Best way to fix Medicare and Social Security is to switch to private individual account that is transferable (inheritable) like any other asset.
With regards to employment benefit (dental/medical/retirement), it should be taken out since it results in discrimination against older workers (higher cost vs. younger workers since younger workers have longer work years ahead of them and lower rate of dental/medical usage) and also prevents market forces from entering the picture.
Imagine if your home/auto policies were tied to your place of employment...how competitive do you think your monthly premium would be? As well as the coverage?
The reason why employment benefits are tied to your place of occupation today is because they are tax deductible by your employers due to a quirk in our labor history during WWII when FDR/federal government stupidly put a wage cap in place. In order to get around it, employers started offering non-cash benefits.
Best.
--J
PS
couple of common mistakes I've spotted:
i. high level of personal debt is bad for economy: neither. An entrepreneur or a highly productive employee could have high personal debt for one reason or other such as poor financial management, but still have high net output (operate a small business with high output and net profit, or the value of an employee's work to the firm is very high, far exceeding the personal debt).
ii. people in government are incompetent: neither true nor false. It depends on individual employee. However, the government system prevents efficiency since it doesn't face competition, limited labor mobility(difficult to fire/hire employees), and its income is usu. derived from tax revenue independent of performance.
iii. commodities
long term return on commodities is the rate of inflation minus carry cost
You have to know what are relevant (significant) factors of economic growth.
Factors of economic growth are:
1. strong property rights and rule of law (already exist in US)
2. low regulatory barrier to business(state dependent to some degree)
3. low transaction cost (tax, regulatory cost)
4. stable currency (already exist in US)
5. communication infrastructure(trade makes us more wealthy and communication infrastructure makes trade possible)
6. lowering of trade barrier
7. ending subsidy (I believe there are like 5 crops that are still subsidized)
8. existence of capital market (already exist in US and we probably lead the world in this)
9. labor mobility(fairly high in US compared to Europe) but could be higher once group benefits (employment benefits) are taken out
I would focus on lowering transaction cost. In US, unlike most countries, underground economy is quite small. Transaction cost includes tax, cost of complying with regulation, hidden cost of litigation, including litigation insurance, etc.
I would further lower or take away both long term and short term capital gain tax to spur more investment. Furthermore, I would take away the corporate tax(since business can't exist perpetually on loss, it's passed onto consumers in form of higher prices on goods and services).
Two major long term financial threat are Medicare (more urgent than Social Security) and Social Security. The reason why they are long term threat is due to the way they are funded (PAYNGO). There is no underlying trust fund like private pension plan or investment fund. Benefits paid out today are funded by people paying into the system today. Because the ratio of workers to retirees are getting smaller and smaller due to population of retiree growing at a faster rate than the workers, it's not sustainable.
Best way to fix Medicare and Social Security is to switch to private individual account that is transferable (inheritable) like any other asset.
With regards to employment benefit (dental/medical/retirement), it should be taken out since it results in discrimination against older workers (higher cost vs. younger workers since younger workers have longer work years ahead of them and lower rate of dental/medical usage) and also prevents market forces from entering the picture.
Imagine if your home/auto policies were tied to your place of employment...how competitive do you think your monthly premium would be? As well as the coverage?
The reason why employment benefits are tied to your place of occupation today is because they are tax deductible by your employers due to a quirk in our labor history during WWII when FDR/federal government stupidly put a wage cap in place. In order to get around it, employers started offering non-cash benefits.
Best.
--J
PS
couple of common mistakes I've spotted:
i. high level of personal debt is bad for economy: neither. An entrepreneur or a highly productive employee could have high personal debt for one reason or other such as poor financial management, but still have high net output (operate a small business with high output and net profit, or the value of an employee's work to the firm is very high, far exceeding the personal debt).
ii. people in government are incompetent: neither true nor false. It depends on individual employee. However, the government system prevents efficiency since it doesn't face competition, limited labor mobility(difficult to fire/hire employees), and its income is usu. derived from tax revenue independent of performance.
iii. commodities
long term return on commodities is the rate of inflation minus carry cost
Not to go off-rant here, but does anyone think that all this "stimulation of the economy" will lead to is a run on flat-screen tvs at Wal-Mart in the range of $600 to $1200? I personaly have bucked the trend and am looking at a RRA LAR-8 at my friendly neighborhood gunstore.
Watch the language, I doubt that you would use the phrase "dollar sign-H-I-T" in polite company. I know I would not. You are however correct in your assertion that the only jobs that this would create are ones involving children shoveling their parents driveways for $10. Get $300 and a shoveled driveway for $10? I have got to get me some dependants!
Watch the language, I doubt that you would use the phrase "dollar sign-H-I-T" in polite company. I know I would not. You are however correct in your assertion that the only jobs that this would create are ones involving children shoveling their parents driveways for $10. Get $300 and a shoveled driveway for $10? I have got to get me some dependants!
Here is some insight. As usual Lou is ahead of his time.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/28/dobbs.testimony/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/28/dobbs.testimony/index.html
theinvisibleheart
New member
Lou Dobbs article+$600 rebate
Lou Dobbs on trade deficit is wrong.
1. trade deficit and government deficit spending are not directly tied together.
US gov deficit spending is primarily the result of spending > revenue income and how some of the social programs are funded (PAYNGO like Social Security and Medicare are non-sustainable. It would be sustainable if it was funded via individual account---the money you save today funds your future retirement and medical need).
2. if Country A trades with US and Country A protects its home market while US does not protect its home market via tariff and import restriction, US still benefits from its relation with Country A.
Why? Because consumers in US who buy products+services from Country A benefit from comparative advantage of Country A which can produce products+services more efficiently (either due to its location, weather, climate, labor force, technology, etc.) than US producers can.
You see this in your daily life. We can produce "mikan" (Japanese tangerine) through climate controlled green house in US instead of from Japan. But because it's cheaper (geographical/climate advantage for Japan) to buy it from Japan, we do. Or it can be in something as complex as miniaturization...in other countries, culture combined with physical space limitation might produce manufacturing advantage in that area over US.
This goes way beyond just cheap labor cost. E.g., Lenovo (major Chinese PC manufacturer) recently outsourced PC production to Taiwan. Remember, Taiwan's per capita GDP is way higher than that of mainland China, yet due to its comparative advantage, its able to do it better than China can.
$600 rebate:
1. it will be significant simply because of the size of US tax payers who will each get $600. At the very least, it will most probably increase liquidity in US banks (temporarily).
2. but it will not be sustainable
3. there is a huge transfer cost: when you give the government $1 and later that $1 comes back to you, you only get a fraction of it due to high cost of transference. This is true for other things like social welfare program (very expensive for government to administer).
4. better, more permanent solution is lower tax rate, esp. short and long term capital gains, and move from revenue based to expenditure based tax system like FairTax.
Best.
--J
Lou Dobbs on trade deficit is wrong.
1. trade deficit and government deficit spending are not directly tied together.
US gov deficit spending is primarily the result of spending > revenue income and how some of the social programs are funded (PAYNGO like Social Security and Medicare are non-sustainable. It would be sustainable if it was funded via individual account---the money you save today funds your future retirement and medical need).
2. if Country A trades with US and Country A protects its home market while US does not protect its home market via tariff and import restriction, US still benefits from its relation with Country A.
Why? Because consumers in US who buy products+services from Country A benefit from comparative advantage of Country A which can produce products+services more efficiently (either due to its location, weather, climate, labor force, technology, etc.) than US producers can.
You see this in your daily life. We can produce "mikan" (Japanese tangerine) through climate controlled green house in US instead of from Japan. But because it's cheaper (geographical/climate advantage for Japan) to buy it from Japan, we do. Or it can be in something as complex as miniaturization...in other countries, culture combined with physical space limitation might produce manufacturing advantage in that area over US.
This goes way beyond just cheap labor cost. E.g., Lenovo (major Chinese PC manufacturer) recently outsourced PC production to Taiwan. Remember, Taiwan's per capita GDP is way higher than that of mainland China, yet due to its comparative advantage, its able to do it better than China can.
$600 rebate:
1. it will be significant simply because of the size of US tax payers who will each get $600. At the very least, it will most probably increase liquidity in US banks (temporarily).
2. but it will not be sustainable
3. there is a huge transfer cost: when you give the government $1 and later that $1 comes back to you, you only get a fraction of it due to high cost of transference. This is true for other things like social welfare program (very expensive for government to administer).
4. better, more permanent solution is lower tax rate, esp. short and long term capital gains, and move from revenue based to expenditure based tax system like FairTax.
Best.
--J
Stimulate the economy... hmm... Here's an idea. Hire a lot of Americans, using American supplies to build a fence on our southern border. That should create some jobs and help save the country at the same time. Then hire Americans, using American supplies to fix the roads, build bridges, and improve run-down parts of major cities. That should help both ways as well. Eliminate tax breaks for big industry especially oil and use that money to fund these projects. If more is needed then eliminate capital gains tax breaks for the rich and make them pay the full amount, just like I have to. I don't think the rich should get taxed more than me just because they can afford it, but it should be equal. That should just about cover the costs of the above projects.
Then the president (Bush or whoever is next) needs to sit top scientists down and create a "race" like the space race. But this one for energy. Get the top minds together and ask: "What will it take to creat a stable fussion power system in the United States in 10 years?" Time and money are interchangable. That will create all sorts of jobs, as well as help (not eliminate, but help) reduce our dependance on foriegn oil.
Let us normal folk, deduct rent or a portion of it, as a tax deduction, just like interest on a mortgage payment. I'm sorry, that I can't afford a nice home in northern virginia, but since they are ridiculously priced, I have to rent and it would help out tremendously, if I could get $500 or $1000 back.
Then if we can try to reduce the trading deficit we will be in really good shape, but that is longer term. Well, that's my idea
Then the president (Bush or whoever is next) needs to sit top scientists down and create a "race" like the space race. But this one for energy. Get the top minds together and ask: "What will it take to creat a stable fussion power system in the United States in 10 years?" Time and money are interchangable. That will create all sorts of jobs, as well as help (not eliminate, but help) reduce our dependance on foriegn oil.
Let us normal folk, deduct rent or a portion of it, as a tax deduction, just like interest on a mortgage payment. I'm sorry, that I can't afford a nice home in northern virginia, but since they are ridiculously priced, I have to rent and it would help out tremendously, if I could get $500 or $1000 back.
Then if we can try to reduce the trading deficit we will be in really good shape, but that is longer term. Well, that's my idea
Unregistered
Moderator
Overall, I like Radiki's ideas.
However, deducting rent is not a good option, as it would effectively give a double credit to mortgage interest. The owner of the property is already getting the mortgage interest credit, and this is passed on to the renter in the form of less monthly rent.
However, deducting rent is not a good option, as it would effectively give a double credit to mortgage interest. The owner of the property is already getting the mortgage interest credit, and this is passed on to the renter in the form of less monthly rent.
Interesting ideas so far!
Maybe we could stimiulate the economy, make our farmers rich, and solve the energy crisis all at the same time. Perhaps a mix of nuclear energy and some type of alternative fuel (made from switchgrass, or from methane gas)?
Hey, we've got plenty of hog dung here in Nebraska; in fact, we've got plenty of all different kinds of animal dung here. Let's tap the methane gas! No more depending on the middle east (or at least a whole lot less). We'll employ people here, spend money on fuel here, and save the family farming community all at once.
Maybe we could stimiulate the economy, make our farmers rich, and solve the energy crisis all at the same time. Perhaps a mix of nuclear energy and some type of alternative fuel (made from switchgrass, or from methane gas)?
Hey, we've got plenty of hog dung here in Nebraska; in fact, we've got plenty of all different kinds of animal dung here. Let's tap the methane gas! No more depending on the middle east (or at least a whole lot less). We'll employ people here, spend money on fuel here, and save the family farming community all at once.
I also like Radiki's ideas. We developed a nuclear weapon in just a few short years to end a war, who says we cannot develop a new energy source like fusion to power electrical plants. A big part of the problem is lack of positive thinking and real visionary leadership. Bush is a pure reactionary. He waits until the economy declines, then he asks the Fed to move the interest rate down like it is some sort of master control switch. He doesn't have a clue about how to solve the real fundamental economic problems.
Looks like the toy factories and electronic gadget factories in China will be hiring lots of new workers so they can ramp up production for all the stuff we will be buying from them!
I don't like Huck, but he has a great point: Who's economy will we be stimulating?
This whole stimulous is stupid. Rediculously so. Anybody who can't see that is certainly a public school flunkie. It isn't free money.
How 'bout let's quit spending money overseas. How bout we not buy houses we can't afford. Elsewhere on this thread, somebody spoke of the median home prices in the 1970's. People didn't overbuy their houses back then. If they knew then that their house shouldn't account for more than four years' salary, then why are people buying houses now that account for 8? My house accounts for two years of my salary.
How bout we not drive cars we can't afford the payments or gas in? How 'bout we learn something about our own household budgets rather than worry about the neighbors'?
This isn't rocket science, and now I'm mad that my tax money will go to those who likely live in a larger house than I but make less money. My bet is also in that house, there is a nice garage with two nicer cars than I drive. Why exactly do I want to bail those idiots out?
I don't like Huck, but he has a great point: Who's economy will we be stimulating?
This whole stimulous is stupid. Rediculously so. Anybody who can't see that is certainly a public school flunkie. It isn't free money.
How 'bout let's quit spending money overseas. How bout we not buy houses we can't afford. Elsewhere on this thread, somebody spoke of the median home prices in the 1970's. People didn't overbuy their houses back then. If they knew then that their house shouldn't account for more than four years' salary, then why are people buying houses now that account for 8? My house accounts for two years of my salary.
How bout we not drive cars we can't afford the payments or gas in? How 'bout we learn something about our own household budgets rather than worry about the neighbors'?
This isn't rocket science, and now I'm mad that my tax money will go to those who likely live in a larger house than I but make less money. My bet is also in that house, there is a nice garage with two nicer cars than I drive. Why exactly do I want to bail those idiots out?
Lowering interest rates is not the cure.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/barr_interest.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008012511
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/barr_interest.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008012511
The Tourist
Moderator
Here's a novel idea. If this is truly a free market economy, just let the market sort itself out with a 'float.'
We keep putzing around with numbers and money. If the stock market soars, then there's an "adjustment" and lots of smaller investors lose their money. If stocks weren't artificially ratcheted up and over-sold this wouldn't happen.
As for "cooling" the economy by taxes and interest adjustments, simply get out of the way and let the market drive the needs.
Taking money out of the mix for redistribution simply rewards the guys who sit on their hands and punishes the entrepreneurs who create all of the wealth.
Will people go bankrupt? Of course. Will people make millions? You bet. That's the idea.
I've made the decision to keep my business small enough to carry around in two moderate size plastic cases. After all, why should I reward the government for simply finding me and taxing the fruits of labor it did nothing to promote?
I have everything I want, and money I can spend. However, if the government kept to itself, my company might be creating wealth, hence jobs, and twenty people might be paying taxes.
When things are going wrong you don't need more of things that promoted the problem. If your boat is taking on water, the last thing you need is a drill.
We keep putzing around with numbers and money. If the stock market soars, then there's an "adjustment" and lots of smaller investors lose their money. If stocks weren't artificially ratcheted up and over-sold this wouldn't happen.
As for "cooling" the economy by taxes and interest adjustments, simply get out of the way and let the market drive the needs.
Taking money out of the mix for redistribution simply rewards the guys who sit on their hands and punishes the entrepreneurs who create all of the wealth.
Will people go bankrupt? Of course. Will people make millions? You bet. That's the idea.
I've made the decision to keep my business small enough to carry around in two moderate size plastic cases. After all, why should I reward the government for simply finding me and taxing the fruits of labor it did nothing to promote?
I have everything I want, and money I can spend. However, if the government kept to itself, my company might be creating wealth, hence jobs, and twenty people might be paying taxes.
When things are going wrong you don't need more of things that promoted the problem. If your boat is taking on water, the last thing you need is a drill.
theinvisibleheart
New member
did cheaper desktop PC+laptop result in NET loss or increase in US jobs?
Desktop PC today cost $200-$300 or thereabout, depending on configuration. You can get laptop for $500-$600 and up, depending on option.
Desktop PC used to cost $2K and up. Laptop used to cost $3K and up.
Did cheaper desktop PC and laptop result in net loss of US jobs or net gain?
ANS. net gain by increasing productivity of existing business and allowing new businesses to be created at lower cost.
1911A1 with custom features used to be unavailable as a production gun and when available, were extremely expensive due to requirement for custom fitting by gunsmith.
With advent of CNC/MIM technology and production of relatively inexpensive parts, did more affordable 1911 with custom features result on net, more or less jobs?
It actually resulted in more demand for 1911A1 and related jobs...true, there was some people who lost job, but realize that almost always, people buy more if the item cost less and people buy less, if the item cost more.
Demand for 1911 with custom features at $500-$700 (Taurus, low end Kimber) is much more than demand for 1911 with custom feature at $1500-$2000.
You don't want to protect jobs, whether it be American or for that matter, any other country.
You want to focus on productivity.
If you want to stimulate the economy, focus on reducing the transaction cost (both explicit and implicit (e.g. hidden cost of litigation)) and cost of capital (cost of starting new business).
Excellent paper on debunking economic fallacies:
Straight Talk About Economic Literacy by Bryan Caplan
George Mason University
http://www.mercatus.org/repository/docLib/20061011_Straight_Talk_About_Economic_Literacy.pdf
Excerpt:
Desktop PC today cost $200-$300 or thereabout, depending on configuration. You can get laptop for $500-$600 and up, depending on option.
Desktop PC used to cost $2K and up. Laptop used to cost $3K and up.
Did cheaper desktop PC and laptop result in net loss of US jobs or net gain?
ANS. net gain by increasing productivity of existing business and allowing new businesses to be created at lower cost.
1911A1 with custom features used to be unavailable as a production gun and when available, were extremely expensive due to requirement for custom fitting by gunsmith.
With advent of CNC/MIM technology and production of relatively inexpensive parts, did more affordable 1911 with custom features result on net, more or less jobs?
It actually resulted in more demand for 1911A1 and related jobs...true, there was some people who lost job, but realize that almost always, people buy more if the item cost less and people buy less, if the item cost more.
Demand for 1911 with custom features at $500-$700 (Taurus, low end Kimber) is much more than demand for 1911 with custom feature at $1500-$2000.
You don't want to protect jobs, whether it be American or for that matter, any other country.
You want to focus on productivity.
If you want to stimulate the economy, focus on reducing the transaction cost (both explicit and implicit (e.g. hidden cost of litigation)) and cost of capital (cost of starting new business).
Excellent paper on debunking economic fallacies:
Straight Talk About Economic Literacy by Bryan Caplan
George Mason University
http://www.mercatus.org/repository/docLib/20061011_Straight_Talk_About_Economic_Literacy.pdf
Excerpt: