Korporate America

There's always the option of self employment. Large corporations and small businesses create jobs based on their needs which enable them to meet the demand for their products or services, while keeping costs at a level that allows their prices to remain competitive.

What kind of policies might that be? There's not a single cause, if government is excluded, of the problems that lead to economic distortions.

The Yuan is 6.38299 to the dollar today, and was 6.8305 to the dollar on 31 December 2008. And China is becoming more capitalist while the U.S. and Europe are becoming more socialist. That's one reason I moved to Asia, and I look for China to emerge as the world's economic power, if drastic changes don't take place very quickly in the U.S.

How many different forms of taxes do we need? Wouldn't it be much simpler and less costly to have a single form of tax that didn't require an enormous government agency to administer?

The dollar has not maintained its value, now 4 cents compared to what it was in 1913. I assume that you are aware that China has been successfully negotiating with many countries to carry out their trade, which was once done only in dollars, to now being done in Yuan (Renminbi). My brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who work for a Chinese company, but not in China has a choice of receiving their wages in the local currency or Yuan, both of which are readily accepted in the market.

I have all those figures on a spread sheet, along with as much other data as I can find provided by the government, and putting it to use one has to be very careful that a predetermined agenda does not bias the perspective in which it is interpreted.
And yes, I do believe that government, more than anything else is the root of our economic, as well as many other problems. Does not class warfare resemble medieval feudalism? The problem today is that the richest are often the ones who are the promoters, and the warfare exists between the poor plus the lower middle class and the upper middle class, which protects the richest and diminishes upward mobility while doing very little to help the poorest, making their maintenance more costly as a result.

The picture is much larger than just the energy companies, or corporations. China and India are becoming much larger consumers of petroleum, and China is investing heavily in Africa and other areas around the world to provide their future energy needs, recognizing that compared to many other energy sources oil is one of the least expensive, and the U.S. rather than lessen its dependency on foreign oil is increasing it. Profits are a result of what a consumer is willing to pay for a product as opposed to the cost of producing it, and prices are most often set based on the supply versus the demand. If left to simply the consumer and the producers, demand, when prices are high promotes competition entering the market to meet the demand, while driving prices lower, and production higher as competitors try to maintain their market share and maintain their profits, which also results in more jobs. When government interferes, it most often distorts the market in ways that benefits it (the politicians making the laws), as opposed to the consumers and the producers, giving the producers an alternative to lessen or eliminate entirely the impact on them, at cost to the consumers they (government) claim to be benefiting.

Savings is not necessarily the best route to achieve upward mobility, ideas which lead to the creation of products/services that draw consumers, or investments which reap returns that exceed the devaluation of our currency as opposed to just getting a wage increase are usually most effective.

More appropriately, where will that money come from? Only a few years back that amount would have been equal to over 5% of all the money in existence.
Might we be much better off with the Congress controlling our money supply, and private banks more rigidly regulated and competing with one another for savings deposits which would provide their basis to make loans?
Our banking system has become much like, and probably much worse than the stock market, where it used to be a PE of 19 or less was considered to be fairly safe. The stock market, unlike banks, is a place where people gamble their money in hopes of making a profit, and the investor is solely liable for his/her poor judgment. Banks take the savings of individuals with the implication that the earnings, while relatively small are guaranteed and safe. Government intervention into banks should only be that they are run as risk free as possible. Loans should be made to those who can afford them and greater collateral should be required in cases where banks perceive greater risk in the borrowers ability to pay in full. Risks in banking should be born by the borrower, not the savers. Home loans should require a sizable initial investment by the borrower, as a motivation to ensure he/she not default and take a loss.