Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

I feel that the economy is going to continue to decline. The recent spikes in the stock market and employment a merely a result of QE, the underlying problems still remain. The general consensus is that 200,000 jobs need to be added per month for a number of years to get back on track. I just don't see that happening under current conditions.

So I started thinking with the business half of my mind. How do we put millions of people back to work? I've given this a lot of thought, and I think I have the perfect solution.

Re-ignite a space race, and set a target for Mars within the next 10 years.

Sound crazy?

We have the ability, and we've had a viable plan to do so since 1990 - Mars Direct. NASA is the epitome of American ingenuity. Many people don't even realize how many every-day items were invented by NASA during it's golden years:

scratch resistant lenses
water filters
cordless tools
smoke detectors
ear thermometers
shoe insoles
cat scanners
microchips

The list goes on and on - officially about 6300 patents. Think of how many jobs were created by these inventions. Think of how many more inventions (jobs) would be created to complete such a massive undertaking as going to Mars, and beyond!

Cost is certainly an issue, but probably not to the extreme you may have been lead to believe. The Mars Direct plan was estimated in 1990 @ $55 Billion. Chump change compared to the massive bailouts of today.


SO..... there's my thoughts. What are yours?

interesting........ :).......... that you just sat there and thought this up...... the way things are going MARS might be our only escape route.... I say shoot for the stars :)

I'm for just about anything that pumps money into science and technology. The US used to be the best in the world, now we're behind most of the world in this sector. However it might be nice to invest in something that is potentially more useful. For example, working solar panels (not the %5 efficient crap they're producing now) would be massively beneficial. If environmental technology isn't your thing, how about an effective missile defense system? If you just want to live longer maybe we could fund health care research, lets actually cure cancer! If you're a nerd like me we could invest in a new super computer, that would have astounding effects on every industry. My point is that there is almost an endless number of projects we could invest in that would pull us out of the depression. Of course I don't really care about the economy, which is why I'm a political science major :biggrin5: .

I'm not big into "fixing" the economy either due to my personal beliefs :)..... but I admire those that try to think of a "change",, trying is always a good thing and succeeding is even better

I feel that the economy is going to continue to decline. The recent spikes in the stock market and employment a merely a result of QE, the underlying problems still remain. The general consensus is that 200,000 jobs need to be added per month for a number of years to get back on track. I just don't see that happening under current conditions.

The bottom line issue is "confidence" in the markets. The biggest companies are sitting on close to a trillion dollars. They could, today, hire enough to cut unemployment in half, but they won't because they're afraid the markets will take another plunge. So they're sitting on their money and they're waiting.

The trouble is, waiting is going to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. You worry the market is going to drop, so you hedge. They're hedging so much, they're going to cause the drop.

I blame the 'day-trader" mentailty. To them, the future is five minutes from now. Instead of watching trends and long term growth potential of a company, they base buy/sell decisions day to day market fluctuations. Today, a bad fluctuation can kill a company, no matter what it's long term viability is.

The bottom line issue is "confidence" in the markets. The biggest companies are sitting on close to a trillion dollars. They could, today, hire enough to cut unemployment in half, but they won't because they're afraid the markets will take another plunge. So they're sitting on their money and they're waiting.

The trouble is, waiting is going to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. You worry the market is going to drop, so you hedge. They're hedging so much, they're going to cause the drop.

I blame the 'day-trader" mentailty. To them, the future is five minutes from now. Instead of watching trends and long term growth potential of a company, they base buy/sell decisions day to day market fluctuations. Today, a bad fluctuation can kill a company, no matter what it's long term viability is.

genuine feedback :)

I think we should stimulate the economy by purchasing more beer and tipping more strippers.

I think companies that outsource jobs should pay higher taxes. That might help the economy out a little.

I think we should stimulate the economy buy purchasing more beer and tipping more strippers.

I suppose that is one job that will never be unattainable..... :P

thanks I think I just got blinded for life..... ummm more like "PAY TO STAY AWAY".... lol... that is scary...he could get a job as a circus freak though ;)

I think we should stimulate the economy buy purchasing more beer and tipping more strippers.

Especially at a time like this...people need to chill. Btw, Chief, did I tell ya what a hunk your boss is? Just saw him on the tube in his blue uniform.....uhh, get me some water somebody....:)

I think companies that outsource jobs should pay higher taxes. That might help the economy out a little.

Not gonna happen. Companies cover corporate taxes by passing the additional costs on to their customers.

What we need to do is repeal trade agreements like NAFTA, that allow US based companies to open factories in countries with $2 a day labor, then ship the finished goods back to US markets. Ross Perot predicted that manufacturing jobs would move to Mexico if NAFTA was passed. He was right.

Anyone remember the media firestorm back in '96 when Kathie Lee Gifford was accused of using Honduran sweat-shop labor to produce her line of clothing for Walmart?

Why does this seem to be a perfectly acceptable business practice today?

Not gonna happen. Companies cover corporate taxes by passing the additional costs on to their customers.

What we need to do is repeal trade agreements like NAFTA, that allow US based companies to open factories in countries with $2 a day labor, then ship the finished goods back to US markets. Ross Perot predicted that manufacturing jobs would move to Mexico if NAFTA was passed. He was right.

Anyone remember the media firestorm back in '96 when Kathie Lee Gifford was accused of using Honduran sweat-shop labor to produce her line of clothing for Walmart?

Why does this seem to be a perfectly acceptable business practice today?

Uh oh, Curtsie, you and I are gonna disagree here.....I did an entire graduate thesis on trade agreements......which means I read every single paper written by someone else at the time, on all sides of the spectrum, before I had an opinion, and I see it a little different :) For one, once China becomes a more mature economy, even they will have to start repeating the same cycle (of finding banana republics where the labor is cheap). The fix is retraining people into the scores of areas where salaries are higher, more information based, where more know-how is required to include vo-tech. But encouraging Americans to become less skilled for their futures isn't good for them or the economy. In my humble opinion. Also the short-term pain we feel from trade agreements - which is a lot - is far outweighed by the tremendous uplift it's caused to the entire world economy over the past 25 years. People who are experts in trade agreements look 30 years ahead and take into account the long term gains as well as the short term pain we are feeling like in the present. (Which btw used to just be the position of Republicans but is now the position of Democrats and Republicans alike...because of the overwhelming data that shows the up side of trade agreements.) The other thing is Administrations should also be negotiating a whole lot harder on a day-to-day basis with countries like China but because we're spending too much as Americans, we have lost some of our bargaining power. Everything leads back to a need for more fiscal discipline. :)

We also have one of the highest, if not the highest, corporate tax rate in the world....which is only an incentive for the majority of all big companies to be doing a whole lot of things outside of the US, to include operating plants, etc. That's why one of the best fixes of all is to lower the American corporate tax rate. Which was recommended by Obama's Debt Reduction Commission and heartily supported by the Dems and Reps on the Commission.

I'm not big into "fixing" the economy either due to my personal beliefs :)..... but I admire those that try to think of a "change",, trying is always a good thing and succeeding is even better

How is it that you're not big into fixing the economy? The state economy affects everyone, everywhere, including you and especially your children.

I'm no economy expert but I think the economy would pick back up if the fed. gov. got its spending under control, cut all the stupid entitlement programs and lowered the tax rates (you know, ENCOURAGING business to come TO America instead of encouraging business to LEAVE America)

well ...I guess I should clarify what I mean , I do care what goes on in this country.... BUT.... I am a firm believer that it is a loss cause there is no fixing what is bound to happen read the book of revelation and you will understand more what I mean to each his own...sure I think the economy sucks my dad has been out of work for over a year and his unemployment is about to run out, yes it would be nice to get this country under control but IMHO people focus to much on politics to run this country , their lives.... maybe I'm crazy... but that's just how I feel.

How is it that you're not big into fixing the economy? The state economy affects everyone, everywhere, including you and especially your children.

I'm no economy expert but I think the economy would pick back up if the fed. gov. got its spending under control, cut all the stupid entitlement programs and lowered the tax rates (you know, ENCOURAGING business to come TO America instead of encouraging business to LEAVE America)


I do agree with you 100% on that

I agree with the spiritual aspects of what you are saying. That is why I stay out of politics and don't bother to talk about it. I understand that the wicked (ie liars and cheaters and stealers, synonyms with politicians) are running the show right now and it is hopeless to fix what is designed to be broken. Thats why I don't let this stuff bother me, especially when the solutions are so easily visible.

I suppose that is one job that will never be unattainable..... :P

I would put it in the same category as all the get rich working from home jobs....some make a bundle and the rest are jealous :)

Uh oh, Curtsie, you and I are gonna disagree here

Oh, no doubt <sigh>


Idid an entire graduate thesis on trade agreements......which means I read every single paper written by someone else at the time, on all sides of the spectrum, before I had an opinion, and I see it a little different :)

A graduate thesis. Okaaaaaay.


For one, once China becomes a more mature economy, even they will have to start repeating the same cycle (of finding banana republics where the labor is cheap). The fix is retraining people into the scores of areas where salaries are higher, more information based, where more know-how is required to include vo-tech.

What I don't understand, oh all-knowing and far-seeing Intelligence Goddess, is how you DON'T see China's economic policies for what they are... that is, an extension of their foreign diplomatic policy and military policies. I believe we are in a cold war with China, have been for years. They see it that way, but we do not.

You do realize that we have at least one major defense contractor, probably more, opening a new plant in China, right? Oshkosh Truck thinks it's better to build in China themselves than have Chinese companies reverse-engineer their products and under-cut them. I see this as problematic at best. What's next? Should we allow Raytheon to open a factory there... or Boeing? If they wanted to, would anyone see a conflict with our own current defense policies and objectives?


But encouraging Americans to become less skilled for their futures isn't good for them or the economy. In my humble opinion. Also the short-term pain we feel from trade agreements - which is a lot - is far outweighed by the tremendous uplift it's caused to the entire world economy over the past 25 years.

I do not think the US needs to be in the business of developing other countries economies or infrastructure systems, while our own is decaying. I do not see most protectionist policies as "encouraging" American workers to become less skilled. I think we need to implement more of those policies, because other countries like China, have been implementing them against us for years. Their markets for OUR goods should be as open as our markets are to their goods. But they aren't. American workers can compete in any market in the world. Our products are among the very best in quality and price, and will sell so long are the market rules are fair.


The other thing is Administrations should also be negotiating a whole lot harder on a day-to-day basis with countries like China but because we're spending too much as Americans, we have lost some of our bargaining power.

We need to negotiate MUCH harder with China, on a variety of issues. They are engaged in an economic war with us, and at the moment, we're losing. They've dumped a tremendous amount of products on the US market at below cost. Why? They're conducting espionage on a wide array of levels, yet we ignore it. They've developed ASBM missiles with the sole purpose of destroying US aircraft carriers. To what end? They've purchased a number of Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric subs. For what purpose? They have invested heavily in upgrading their military, including developing supposedly stealth aircraft like the J-20. They curently have nuke tipped ICBMs in hardened silos and have had them for decades. We've ****-canned our own. Who do they see as a threat? Russia? I don't think so.

Many see these things as separate issues, but I think they're all related and different facets of an integral long-term "plan" or goal set. Our problem is that we project our own views and psychology on China, thinking that they see what we see, they want what we want, or that their goals are even similar to our own. They aren't. We must not forget that they are still governed by a marxist/maoist totalitarian regime... and they've bought up trillions of dollars in US debt. Concerned yet?


We also have one of the highest, if not the highest, corporate tax rate in the world....which is only an incentive for the majority of all big companies to be doing a whole lot of things outside of the US, to include operating plants, etc. That's why one of the best fixes of all is to lower the American corporate tax rate. Which was recommended by Obama's Debt Reduction Commission and heartily supported by the Dems and Reps on the Commission.

I used to agree with 'trickle down" economics, but not so much anymore. It relies too much on what the corporations see as beneficial to them at any given moment. By "them", I mean the corporate officers themselves. As I stated above, the Fortune 500 is currently sitting on more than a trillion dollars in liquidity. They're not going to move a dollar of it, unless and until they see it as benefiting them directly. It doesn't matter what the government does with the tax rates. Hell, the biggies have enough tax loopholes, lawyers and accountants as it is, that they pay little or no real taxes anyway.

I see giving corporate heads money (or not charging them fair rates) in the "hopes" of them using that money to expand and create jobs in the US as little different than going to the grocery store and paying the store money "in the hopes" of them giving you food. What will you do if they don't give you anything? "Trickle-down" is a nice theory, but what if it doesn't trickle down? What if they just decide to pocket the savings? Remember AIG getting hundreds of millions in TARP funds, then using it to pay fat bonuses to their executives? It doesn't work that way at the grocery store level and it shouldn't work that way at multinational corporate level.

Oh, no doubt <sigh>



A graduate thesis. Okaaaaaay.



What I don't understand, oh all-knowing and far-seeing Intelligence Goddess, is how you DON'T see China's economic policies for what they are... that is, an extension of their foreign diplomatic policy and military policies. I believe we are in a cold war with China, have been for years. They see it that way, but we do not.

You do realize that we have at least one major defense contractor, probably more, opening a new plant in China, right? Oshkosh Truck thinks it's better to build in China themselves than have Chinese companies reverse-engineer their products and under-cut them. I see this as problematic at best. What's next? Should we allow Raytheon to open a factory there... or Boeing? If they wanted to, would anyone see a conflict with our own current defense policies and objectives?



I do not think the US needs to be in the business of developing other countries economies or infrastructure systems, while our own is decaying. I do not see most protectionist policies as "encouraging" American workers to become less skilled. I think we need to implement more of those policies, because other countries like China, have been implementing them against us for years. Their markets for OUR goods should be as open as our markets are to their goods. But they aren't. American workers can compete in any market in the world. Our products are among the very best in quality and price, and will sell so long are the market rules are fair.



We need to negotiate MUCH harder with China, on a variety of issues. They are engaged in an economic war with us, and at the moment, we're losing. They've dumped a tremendous amount of products on the US market at below cost. Why? They're conducting espionage on a wide array of levels, yet we ignore it. They've developed ASBM missiles with the sole purpose of destroying US aircraft carriers. To what end? They've purchased a number of Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric subs. For what purpose? They have invested heavily in upgrading their military, including developing supposedly stealth aircraft like the J-20. They curently have nuke tipped ICBMs in hardened silos and have had them for decades. We've ****-canned our own. Who do they see as a threat? Russia? I don't think so.

Many see these things as separate issues, but I think they're all related and different facets of an integral long-term "plan" or goal set. Our problem is that we project our own views and psychology on China, thinking that they see what we see, they want what we want, or that their goals are even similar to our own. They aren't. We must not forget that they are still governed by a marxist/maoist totalitarian regime... and they've bought up trillions of dollars in US debt. Concerned yet?



I used to agree with 'trickle down" economics, but not so much anymore. It relies too much on what the corporations see as beneficial to them at any given moment. By "them", I mean the corporate officers themselves. As I stated above, the Fortune 500 is currently sitting on more than a trillion dollars in liquidity. They're not going to move a dollar of it, unless and until they see it as benefiting them directly. It doesn't matter what the government does with the tax rates. Hell, the biggies have enough tax loopholes, lawyers and accountants as it is, that they pay little or no real taxes anyway.

I see giving corporate heads money (or not charging them fair rates) in the "hopes" of them using that money to expand and create jobs in the US as little different than going to the grocery store and paying the store money "in the hopes" of them giving you food. What will you do if they don't give you anything? "Trickle-down" is a nice theory, but what if it doesn't trickle down? What if they just decide to pocket the savings? Remember AIG getting hundreds of millions in TARP funds, then using it to pay fat bonuses to their executives? It doesn't work that way at the grocery store level and it shouldn't work that way at multinational corporate level.

Wow, that's some impressive analysis, Curt! Don't have time to give as good a post as yours right now, lol, but when I have time I'll try to answer your questions. First of all, I didn't think the bookish thesis would impress you in the least (it was just meant to show I examined every single argument made my anyone writing about trade at the time and came to a very informed objective opinion because my "intuition" had told me something different and it turns out a lot of economics is "counterintuitive") so how about the fact that I spent 5 years in the early 90s setting up joint ventures in China and was the Director of my company's China operations and office in Beijing and Chendgu....therefore not bookish but all hands on experience in China.

Secondly, I agree with a lot of your paragraphs! And some in total! It will just take time to explain.

Thirdly, I see economics, defense, and foreign policy as completely interrelated as well, as do most people that work in these areas - which is why those are my three areas of expertise. Yes, China is a competing political, military, and economic system and always will be. The thing is some folks are looking for perfection, realists like me just want the lesser of the evils. Meaning all systems are bad in some way, but choose the "least" bad. That's also said about democracy. And at the height of the Cold War when both China and the Soviet Union were more serious adversaries, people like me sitting in the Command Center of the Pentagon worried daily about accidental or intentional nuclear launches by either the Chinese or the Soviets because they were both such rabid Communists with such hatred for Capitalism that we had no doubt they'd be willing to engage in nuclear war. But today, both countries have been co-opted into our market system, almost diminishing the probability of nuclear war with them. Today our battles are on the economic front and less the military front and not the nuclear front at all, so that is a huge step of progress from the 80s. I'll take the economic battles with them anyday over having the much larger worry of annhilation we had before they were co-opted into OUR economic system.

But most everything else you said I agree with....or large blocks of it. Will go back and address other parts when I have time :) Oh, and I've examined the data over decades and believe supply side is the "lessor of the evil" than the Keynsian approach Obama just tried again for the last 2 years and was an overwhelming failure. Which is why he caved on not raising taxes last month. Because the final nail in the Keynsian model was put there by him. Even Obama couldn't ignore the overwhelming consensus in the business world (Moody's, etc.) that said raising taxes would ensure double dip recession.

Oh here's where this thread went to. Thought I needed to expound but guess I already nailed the argument, hehe :biggrinjester:

Oh here's where this thread went to. Thought I needed to expound but guess I already nailed the argument, hehe :biggrinjester:

I'm not a an economics person, but ok I'll bite: explain this
the Keynsian approach Obama just tried again for the last 2 years and was an overwhelming failure. Which is why he caved on not raising taxes last month.

First: Why was it an overwhelming failure? Most of the TARP money has been paid back and much sooner than anticipated.
Second: I don't believe Obama gave up the tax cut fight because he changed his mind on economic policy, I think he did it because it was the only way to push the bill through. The conservatives got an extention of the upper income tax cuts, the libs got extenton of unemployment and middle class tax cuts. Niether side was willing to let the tax cuts expire completely, so they compromised, simple.

I'm about to turn into a pumpkin, uicipher (great name btw), so I'll have to answer this at another time, but the first thing I can tell you is that you've succumbed to the liberal press's class warfare indoctrination by merely the way you asked the following question:

The conservatives got an extention of the upper income tax cuts, the libs got extenton of unemployment and middle class tax cuts.....

And don't feel badly, they control most of the press so it's understandable. However..... we fiscal conservatives wanted extension of tax cuts for EVERYONE, including not only upper income but for the middle class as well. In fact middle class would be primary and upper income would be secondary.

I'm about to turn into a pumpkin, uicipher (great name btw), so I'll have to answer this at another time, but the first thing I can tell you is that you've succumbed to the liberal press's class warfare indoctrination by merely the way you asked the following question:

The conservatives got an extention of the upper income tax cuts, the libs got extenton of unemployment and middle class tax cuts.....
I have a primitive understanding of classical economic theory. Granted I've only taken an introductory course, however my professor did advocate classical theory and I nailed the class, so I understand the basic concepts.




And don't feel badly, [liberals] control most of the press so it's understandable.
I have a more evolved opinion on this issue (than my opinion on economics), and would enjoy discussing it, but I want to try to stay on topic. I might start a new topic on this when I'm less tiered.


We fiscal conservatives wanted extension of tax cuts for EVERYONE, including not only upper income but for the middle class as well. In fact middle class would be primary and upper income would be secondary

I didn't mean that conservatives are against middle class tax cuts, I meant that centrist/left-leaning democrats were not willing to sacrifice them and centrist/right-leaning republicans were able to leverage that as well as unemployment extensions to get an extension on the top income brackets . It was a political strategy point not a political point. *I'll expand on this later.


First: Why was [Keynesian Economics] an overwhelming failure? Most of the TARP money has been paid back and much sooner than anticipated.
I'm looking forward to your answer to this question the most.

I have a primitive understanding of classical economic theory. Granted I've only taken an introductory course, however my professor did advocate classical theory and I nailed the class, so I understand the basic concepts.



I have a more evolved opinion on this issue (than my opinion on economics), and would enjoy discussing it, but I want to try to stay on topic. I might start a new topic on this when I'm less tiered.



I didn't mean that conservatives are against middle class tax cuts, I meant that centrist/left-leaning democrats were not willing to sacrifice them and centrist/right-leaning republicans were able to leverage that as well as unemployment extensions to get an extension on the top income brackets . It was a political strategy point not a political point. *I'll expand on this later.

I'm looking forward to your answer to this question the most.

Running out the door but look at the unemployment rate for one.....last nail in the coffin for Keynsian theory.

Running out the door but look at the unemployment rate for one.....last nail in the coffin for Keynsian theory.
Unemployment has been going down steadily since the beginning of 2010.
Unemployment - Google public data (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment#met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true)

Unemployment has been going down steadily since the beginning of 2010.
Unemployment - Google public data (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment#met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true)

Oh my Lord, that's a great example.....the head of Google is a good buddy of the prez.

We hit basically 10% unemployment about 2 months ago and it has been devastating for many people in this country. Unemployment hasn't been this bad since the 70s... after the culmination of many years of liberals' tax and spend Keynsian policies left us with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment and a whole host of other economic ills. Also that article is flat out false.....the unemployment rate was steadily rising throughout the fall till it got to the startling 9.8%.....

All this spending and increased regulation by Obama caused business in the private sector to come to a screeching halt....the uncertainty his policies caused has put about 1.7 Trillion with a T out of circulation while business tries to figure out how to plan for the future with the tremendous disensentive to invest, hire, or do any longterm planning. Take a close look at people who spout Keynsian economics....and most of them have no experience in business.

Keynesian economics has failed because the "system" is running out of other people's money. Case closed on that.

Unemployment numbers are a joke, please don't reference them as going down.

Unemployment today is measured by the number of people collecting benefits. It does NOT include:

1) People whose benefits have run out
2) People who do not receive unemployment (ie, the self employed)
3) Entry level workers who cannot even find a job to begin with

Hypothetically, if there were no new jobs being created at all, eventually all unemployment benefits would expire and we would have 0% unemployment, according to the gov, while the streets were lined with "will work for food" signs.

First: Why was it an overwhelming failure? Most of the TARP money has been paid back and much sooner than anticipated.

I'll answer this: because TARP, and all of the programs like it, are using money that never existed - we had to print it. Therefore, we have lost trillions of dollars in purchasing power by printing trillions of dollars. This is what is called "inflation".

There is a misconception that inflation means rising prices. Inflation is an increase in the money supply which leads to rising prices by devaluing money already in existence. Why do you think the Federal Reserve hasn't posted an M3 since 2006? Look at gas, oil, and food in just the last 6 months. See a problem there? You cannot willy-nilly print money with no repercussions, no matter what the reason. And what the government can't steal from the public it prints.

How do you counter inflation? Raise interest rates. That's not going to happen in the near future. Why not? Because it would crash the economy.

So you see, the Fed has created quite the pickle here.

1) Raise interest rates=no bank loans for homes/businesses/etc=no expansion=destroy economy
2) Keep interest rates (too) low=print money to pay bills=devaluing of dollar=dollar becomes wothless=destroy economy.

Add on top of that the endless amount of social welfare programs and entitlement benefits that are only getting bigger by the year....

....THAT IS WHY KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

I think we should stimulate the economy by purchasing more beer and tipping more strippers.

Brilliant!

It will be a few days before I can respond to this in detail, because economics isn't my strong point. Here's an example on why economic policy confuses me:
Trip is claiming that business is uncertain on future policies and is tying up its assets instead of investing.
Wisco is claiming that inflation rates will stay low while the money supply increases which means higher inflation rates.
If we have high inflation, then my caveman economics opinion is that business has great incentive to invest. From what I've read, China has been able to expand quickly by devaluing its currency.

quick point:
I'm aware of how unemployment is calculated, however the benefits have been extended for quite some time so it seems that the rate should be relatively accurate between 2008-2010.

Trip is claiming that business is uncertain on future policies and is tying up its assets instead of investing.

Yes.



Wisco is claiming that interestrates will stay low while the money supply increases which means higher inflation rates.

I think "interest" is what you meant. And, yes.



If we have high inflation, then my caveman economics opinion is that business has great incentive to invest.

Depends on what you're investing on. Most businesses rode the .com/realestate/whathaveyou bubble. You invest to make money. There's not much making money out there right now. Commodities would be their best bet - oil, agriculture, precious metals, etc.



From what I've read, China has been able to expand quickly by devaluing its currency.

China has a manufacturing based economy, we do not. They devalue their currency to export cheap goods, resulting in a large influx of foreign (read: more valuable) money. They are the worlds largest creditor, we are not.

WE have a service based economy, a $14 trillion (official) debt, and we run on credit. We have massive unpayable entitlement programs. We have massive trade deficits. If you combine our total debt, all obligations and entitlements, all social programs - our debt exceeds the GDP of the entire planet. Devaluing our currency is the last thing we need to do.



quick point:
I'm aware of how unemployment is calculated, however the benefits have been extended for quite some time so it seems that the rate should be relatively accurate between 2008-2010.

The government is not nor is it ever accurate in its "accounting" of anything. The benefits don't run forever, I know several people who have collected for 2 years and have now lost all benefits - they still don't have a job.