Recession? I've Got a Solution

For months now we have been listening to bad news followed by more bad news about the U.S. economy and how over half the people, analysts and CFOs expect the U.S. to go into recession, assuming that we are not already in one.

Well folks, I've got the fix!

I'm not kidding. I'm for real. Though some who read this will say that the details are a bit sketchy and that I haven't included enough hard data and pie charts to prove the primary thesis, I have intentionally stuck to an article format as many do not have the patience for a white paper. Besides, Seeking Alpha doesn't publish white papers!

The Problem

In July 2006, Seeking Alpha published an article entitled The U.S. Economy: Finding the Balance between Production and Consumption. As stated in the article:

The first dose of reality is to understand that no economy can maintain a 66% consumption rate. The ideal situation is that production equals consumption. If you don’t produce, then don’t consume. The notion that supply side economics can spur economic growth indefinitely is bogus. Eventually you accumulate so much debt that everything goes kaput. Supply side economics works great for getting an economy out of a recession. Once achieved, the emphasis should be on production of goods consumed.

The U.S. economy cannot continue indefinitely accumulating a $700B a year trade deficit coupled with a $400B a year Federal budget shortfall. Something has to give. To 'grow' out of the deficit through inflationary growth is a fool's folly.

This is clearly evident as the average household is under severe stress from rising prices on everyday staples, without including the housing debacle. The country can be divided into two classes of citizens; those with housing issues and those without. For those without mortgage and foreclosure issues, inflation and wage stagnation is their biggest hurdle. For those with housing issues the problem is compounded.

The current thinking of this administration is to relieve pressure by pushing things off. In essence, lower rates will cause adjustable rate mortgages to reset lower and will ease the pressure for now. However, this is not a long term solution and is liken to treating the symptom, not the cause. Similarly, giving the average American family a several hundred dollar handout, starting May, will alleviate symptoms but not address the reason that the handout was needed in the first place.

First, to understand the problem we need to separate the two origins and tackle each one individually. We have two totally separate 'diseases' that need to be treated. Every doctor knows that a correct diagnosis is imperative. Once you have that you can begin treatment.

Diagnosis

In order to comprehend the two diseases that are afflicting our economy, we need to differentiate between ongoing consumption and past over consumption. The former is what is afflicting all Americans where the latter pertains to the housing/financial crisis. Both accumulated personal debt and public debt fall into the latter category. This article deals strictly with the former.

Bundling the two together leads to a misconception that begets a false perception that continued consumption can alleviate both. In reality, all it accomplishes is a bleaker future and renders the remedy to be more elusive.

Many economists fear the notion of reduced consumption as this will lead to a recession, perhaps even a depression. They are correct. Any downtick in economic activity will show up as a contraction which is a recessionary process. Today, we import $700B a year more than we export and if we were to stop importing $700B worth of goods today (hypothetically of course) this in effect would reduce the economic activity by the same amount. Naturally, this would lead to stagnation or even a recession.

On the other hand, if this $700B worth of imports were to be replaced by local production (once again, hypothetically - for now), we would maintain the same economic activity and continue on a growth pattern without the aftereffects of a trade deficit. The aftereffects include currency devaluation, inflation, unemployment and eventually loss of infrastructure and the ability to make a come back.

The key word in all of this is substitution, more on this later.

The Trade Deficit

The trade deficit is comprised of two parts and two components; the components being finished goods and raw materials. The better known component is the importation of finished goods. Raw materials for further manufacturing and processing can actually be a positive. It is the 'finished goods imported for consumption' that is a dead end import.

The U.S. trade deficit with China is correctly highlighted in the media but for the wrong reason. It is not only the sheer volume of imbalance that is of concern but more so is the type of goods that are imported from China and the nature of the U.S. exports to China. The U.S. imports primarily finished goods from China yet exports are a mixture of finished goods and raw materials that the Chinese finish into goods and re-export to the U.S.

This has been a bone of contention with trade negotiators on both sides of the Pacific. The Chinese assert that the U.S. simply can not compete due to the fact that wages are substantially lower in China in comparison with the U.S. The U.S. maintains that if China were to revalue their currency, this would alleviate the labor cost discrepancy thus even out the playing field. In reality, the wage discrepancy between the U.S. and China is so huge that it would take the better part of a decade of continuous 8% net inflation in China coupled with a 7% per annum revaluation (or dollar devaluation) to achieve a level playing field. In the interim, the U.S. would continue transferring wealth from U.S. citizens to the Chinese at an ever increasing pace. We shall call this the 'interim period'.

However, as stated above there are two parts to the trade deficit, not just two components. The first part is goods and services and as stated have two components; raw materials and finished goods. The second part is energy.

Energy is an ingredient that is prevalent in everything we do in any given economy. Similar to labor, the country that has an energy advantage can compensate for higher labor costs to some extent. For many years and true today as well, U.S. energy costs have been lower than in Japan or the European Union. When oil was below $20 a barrel, the energy factor mitigated the 'labor discrepancy cost' with China on a wider range of goods. As oil climbed above the $60 range, the offset was wiped out. The only silver lining was the fact that the higher energy costs meant that there would be inflationary pressures in China as well which would eventually lead to higher wages. Once again, this is a fool's folly as this does not deal with the ten to twenty year interim period and also neglects to take into account that the offset is only partial at best.

The Chain Reaction

Energy is a primary component in the cost structure of all economies. The more industrialized the economy is, the greater the direct impact energy has on economic activity and influences the input cost structure. In the past I have mentioned that using 12/31/2006 constant dollars, the threshold for the U.S. tipping over towards recession was an energy cost of $85 +/- per barrel. The way the U.S. is currently attempting to avoid surpassing this threshold is through the implementation of a dangerous game known as currency devaluation. Nominally, oil is above this threshold; however, the dollar is being devalued back to the threshold point.

I will not get into all the ramifications of currency devaluation, though I will state that this is so dangerous that Vegas wouldn't give odds on a long term positive outcome.

In essence, what the administration is doing is getting us back to the threshold point, thus pushing off a possible recession. This time around, there may or may not be a plan for a different outcome and let's hope it is not another ethanol like scheme that has negative inflationary side effects. Just in case the administration doesn't have a doable game plan, I do…

The Theory

I was delighted to read this weekend an AP article where the United States Air Force plans to wean itself from oil by up to 50%, a doable concept by 2016. It is important to read the entire article as there are many points in this article that I address below. Liquefying coal is not a new concept and the main impediments are twofold, infrastructure costs and pollution.

The first issue to contend with is the cost. According to the Air Force, the start up costs is $5B to produce 25,000 barrels per day. If I were to approach Exxon Mobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP) or Chevron (CVX) and offer them a well that can produce 25,000 barrels p/d for $5B, they would laugh and show me the door.

There are several items that are being overlooked here. First, we are not talking about a well. We are talking about a refinery equivalent with a guaranteed 100 or 400 year supply contract. The oil companies are accustomed to investing in high yield or quick return well sites. The average (U.S.) site runs its course in ten to twenty years and is then abandoned. However, refineries are built to last longer. No new oil refineries have been built in the United States for over twenty years. The oil companies need to view this investment as a refinery. This creates another problem as most refiners would prefer one 250,000 bpd refinery over ten 25,000 bpd refineries. So now we are talking about a $50B investment…oops.

As stated in the article, Wall Street is skeptical:

"Is it a viable technology? Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple (of plants) done," said industry analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this and then five years later oil is back at $60—this becomes the worst idea that ever happened."

Gordon Howald is saying:

1) In order for the 'coal refinery' (Coal Liquid Energy Artificial Restoration; hereinafter CLEAR) to be profitable, oil must stay above $65 a barrel forever. This is due to the high infrastructure costs.

2) In addition, the price of coal can not rise substantially from current prices in relation to oil. In other words, if oil goes up 50%, coal can increase by the same percentage without causing losses as the price at the pump increases in tandem. However, if oil increases 10% and coal increases 50%, all CLEAR units start losing money. Likewise if the price of oil goes down, the price of coal must move down as well to remain competitive.

The second item is solvable as the majority of coal reserves are owned by the Federal government. All the government has to do is form a linkage mechanism to the price of oil while guaranteeing, if not a 400 year supply, a 100 year supply to the CLEAR unit.

I will deal with the cost structure in a moment, but first…

The United States imports approximately 10 million barrels of oil per day. This contributes approximately $330B a year or nearly 50% to the U.S. trade deficit. It would take 10 large $50 billion CLEAR units to reduce this by 25%. In other words, the Federal government would make an up front investment of $500B in order to stop sending $83B a year out of the country, that's over 16% a year! Another way of looking at it is that it would take six years to recoup the entire investment from a trade impact viewpoint. Had this been done eight years ago, we would have reduced our accumulated trade deficit by $860B at current prices (very rough approximation). It is costing us $30+B a year just to finance the interest alone!

Not only would (should) this money remain at home, but the Federal government would earn royalties on the coal which in return would have reduced the Federal deficit as well.

In addition, there is a very good chance that the remaining 75% that would be imported would be at far lower rates. True to say that in such a case the reduced accumulated trade deficit savings would be less for the CLEAR replacement, however the savings on the imported 75% component would more than make up for any shortfall from the $860B figure above.

No matter how you cut this or juggle the figures, from a financial viewpoint, the United States can not afford to postpone the CLEAR project any longer.

Employment

One of the concerns today is that we are facing rising unemployment as the construction industry slips further. Housing is not expected to pick up for several years to come. I find it ironic that a major infrastructure project that is doable in ten different locations is not even being considered by Congress as a means to reverse the recessionary trends that have emerged in the construction sector. By the time the CLEAR projects have been completed, the housing industry should be back to normal.

The Cost Structure

Taking a page out of the housing/finance debacle playbook, the cost/risk of building a CLEAR unit can be reduced substantially. Currently the United States can not afford to enter a recession due to the heavy debt load that has been accumulated. This is what is guiding the Federal Reserve in its numerous actions, including the assumption of risk masked as discount window loans and other endeavors.

It would make far more sense for the Federal government to make a $45B unsecured loan (using the CLEAR unit as collateral) to the likes of Exxon Mobil (XOM) and others at a fixed rate and for XOM to shell out $5B for a 250,000 bpd refinery with a 100 year guaranteed coal supply. Should oil fall below $65 during the 30 year term of the $45B loan, the Federal government could do the same as what the Federal Reserve is doing for the housing/mortgage/finance industry and stretch it out. This would solve the high infrastructure costs. Let's face it; the risk to the Federal government is far lower than the risk the Federal Reserve is taking on with all the toxic waste CDO's and the likes.

Notice how XOM isn't showing me the door on a $5B - 250,000 bpd refinery!

As an aside, instead of adding 2M barrels a month to the strategic reserves at a cost of $200 million per month, financing a single 250,000 bpd (7.5M barrels per month) CLEAR project at $2.4B per year yields a far bigger bang for the same buck. In other words, even if the loan was interest free, the U.S. would be better off!

Substitution

I am not advocating a reduction in consumption, rather a substitution. Instead of buying crude oil and refined products from overseas, we use the very same energy companies that supply our energy needs today to build new substitutions at home. Conservation is always welcome, however, economists will point out that conservation needs to be replaced with growth; otherwise this leads to contraction.

The flip side of all of this is that while the U.S. economy will get a shot in the arm and rekindle non inflationary growth at home, several overseas suppliers will endure a contraction. Frankly, one could say 'so what', but in reality on a global scale any contraction has a ripple effect. Having stated the obvious, it is noteworthy that at the rate India and China are growing; any substitution made in the U.S. will be picked up by others. Hence, we will not experience a contraction, rather a slower growth on a global scale for crude oil. Eventually and over a long period of time, as technology improves, CLEAR could possibly substitute oil in a major way. By then hopefully, solar energy will become cost competitive, but one never knows. In any event, it will take decades to phase out the consumption of fossil fuels, well after the CLEAR units have been fully amortized.

Pollution

This is where capitalism is at its best. I do not proclaim to be an expert on the pollution front, nor can I opine with any certainty that the latest technology proclaiming to be as clean as petroleum products are accurate or not.

What I do know from my own experience is that science and technology evolve more efficiently in a competitive capitalistic environment.

As a part time scientist, I will offer up the following analogy. Imagine for a moment that Henry Ford postponed the Model T because it would just be a matter of time before the modern day Cadillac would be developed! In reality, had he postponed the Model T, chances are that the modern day Cadillac would never have been developed at all! In other words, necessity is the mother of all inventions. Even if the first generation of the product does not meet all the requirements of the average consumer, eventually it will.

The same can be said about the first mobile phones…just look at them now, or only a decade later.

When it comes to pollution and fuel economy, the same applies. As the CLEAR units are built and run by competing companies, the more efficient companies reap the rewards. The Federal government has already initiated legislation requiring various fuel combinations regarding bio fuels. Likewise, it would be fairly easy to introduce legislation that clearly rewards cleaner CLEAR fuels as they are developed by the various companies. This can take on the form of government/army supply contracts as well as many other financial incentives that would make a cleaner fuel worth while. In addition, the newest and best technologies would be leased to others and the list goes on.

The Fix

The first step would be to enlist 10 companies where each company would build a 25,000 bpd pilot plant and invest $500 million. The additional $4.5B would be financed through a Federal loan as mentioned above. There would be an option to increase capacity tenfold within a specified time frame.

At the very least, we have started 10 mega infrastructure projects and end up importing 7.5M barrels per month less oil, every month for the next 100 years. At best, we have replaced one form of fossil fuel that we are in short supply of with another that we know we have plenty off. Personally I wish that renewable solar energy would become a viable replacement, but we have run out of time and can wait no longer. In addition, solar energy technology is gearing up for the utility industry and has yet to make significant progress in the transportation sector.

Just like oil recovery technologies have improved drastically over the years out of pure necessity, likewise CLEAR technology will undoubtedly improve out of competitive necessity once we have created the infrastructure where the technology plays a major role. If you have what to lose and what to gain, technological advancements occur. If you have nothing at stake, nothing will happen.

Every day that we procrastinate takes us a day closer to a recession that we can ill afford.

Comments

[vboring:]

three things:

"afflicted", not "inflicted"

i'm with you on the diagnosis and the domestic energy production idea as a solution. low interest rates will be an incredible boon for large capital projects like new energy construction.

but coal to fuel has fundamental energy problems. energy problems don't just go away with thing like miniaturization of chips or evolution of materials (the way that cell phones and cars got better). energy problems deal much closer to the edges of the laws of physics. so, the coal-to-liquids technology today is probably about 90% as good as it will ever be in terms of coal-to-liquid conversion efficiency (and thus CO2/gallon of fuel produced).

i like non-silicon solar, breeder-reactor nukes, tree-crop biofuels, and PHEVs as domestic energy solutions.

2008 Mar 24 10:57 AM

[DougM:]

I agree with vboring, CTL is going to create more problems than it solves, and to boot will just deplete our coal reserves faster. I think you've nailed it with energy policy as the single most effective lever to pull, but vehicle electrification and expansion of nuclear and solar thermal power are a better way forward than more coal.

On the trade imbalance with China specifically, the US has more than raw materials to offer. Specifically, we produce a lot of IP-heavy things like movies, games, software, even prescription drugs. The sad fact is that in China (and a lot of other places) these things are taken without any payment to their creators.

2008 Mar 24 11:15 AM

[Lukasz:]

I have a better fix. How about making companies to give their employees raises in exchange for a tax cut. Not just a tax cut like we used to see from the gov. Give people 10% raise in exchange for 10% tax break. People will have more money, they'll spend it more often. Economy will grow and everyone will be happy! As simple as this.

2008 Mar 24 11:34 AM

[Saul Sterman:]

vboring,

Thanks for the afflicting correction!

DougM,

"more problems than it solves"
Is this an assumption or do you have access to data from the proposed projects?

Saul

2008 Mar 24 11:37 AM

[Tao:]

We need to pay down the deficit and save those billions of interest. The interest money is leaving this country and going to China and Japan.

2008 Mar 24 11:53 AM

[Bill Smith:]

The author is exactly right. At current oil prices, the need and practicality of coal-to-oil (and more nuclear) are obvious to me, as an engineer. Unfortunately, environmental extremists have misinformed and scared the general public and politicians into not even considering them. So, these real solutions will be obstructed and delayed indefinitely. They'll begin in earnest only after economic and fuel-supply problems become a crisis so obvious and terrible, that everyone is outraged and gets a clearer understanding of reality. Then, it'll take 10 more years for the plants to be built.

2008 Mar 24 01:04 PM

[LCACM:]

The article is highly informative and balanced. However, the proposed ideas are not likely to be followed as lawyers and MBAs who are in charge of Government budgets, will be unable to grasp the reasoning.

2008 Mar 24 01:16 PM

[cg:]

Interesting and thoughtful article. I'd like to see more like this that talk intelligently about the economic details.

2008 Mar 24 01:44 PM

[cheapybob:]

I applaud you're actually noticing that there is a problem with thiose deficit twins, and proposing ANYTHING to help bring them down.

I feel the same way that they need to be reduced. I'll throw in some other ideas to improve the situation.

tax non-renewable fuel heavily. I'm talking $2.00 a gallon additional. basically this will increase the price to where people reduce consumption, and imports will drop. offset this tax with equally reduced payroll taxes, either SS or Medicare so that there is no tax increase, just a shift from taxing work to taxing consumption of scarce resources.

2008 Mar 24 02:57 PM

[DougM:]

Re. ramping up coal creating "more problems than it solves", I would make the following points:

1. It will greatly increase CO2 emissions at a time when we are trying to cut them. Coal is the most carbon-intesive energy source we have. CTL processes waste some of the energy in the coal to effect the conversion.

2. Our coal reserves won't last forever. It's yet another fossil fuel that will eventually be depleted. World R/P ratios for coal are over 100 years, but dropping fast as coal use in the developing world skyrockets. Coal won't last the rest of this century, especially if it's called upon to make up for the energy we used to get from oil as that goes into depletion. In contrast, proven uranium and thorium reserves would last millenia even if used to power all our transportation.

3. Vehicle electrification is a far more efficient way to tap into energy alternatives, because of the inherent inefficiency of internal combustion engines. This is true even if the electricity comes from coal. And of course we have many more ways of making electricity.

4. I think we should at least discuss biofuels since that's our current quick-fix solution. Biofuels are hugely disadvantatged versus solar PV and solar thermal; the problem is that photosynthesis captures less than 1% of the available solar energy. The difference is 1-2 orders of magnitude, depending on the crop, location, and the solar technology it's competing with. In other words, it's an insurmountable hurdle. The analysis only gets worse for biofuels if you factor in side-effects such as soil depletion, fertiliser runoff, etc. In fact, given the enormous energy costs associated with rendering feedstocks into liquid fuels pure enough to use in internal combustion engines, it is arguably more efficient simply to dry energy crops and then burn them to generate electricity - no breakthrough in cellulosic decomposition required.

In sum, liquid fuels do provide a convenient portable source of energy, and for many applications (e.g. heavy equipment, planes, ships, etc.) they are unlikely to be dethroned for decades, if ever. However, those uses are small enough in the aggregate that we could easily meet them with declining petroleum resources for the rest of the century, and I believe we could continue meeting them for centuries to come by using CTL, biofuels, and other alternatives, once petroleum resources are depleted. To make that future work, personal transport would have to go electric. Since 80-90% of trips are within the all-electric range of a plug-in hybrid, it seems practical to displace that much of current personal transportation consumption to the grid.

I suggest you google around or read some of the energy blogs, such as Robert Rapier's blog or Geoff Styles' Energy Outlook blog for more information about these issues.

2008 Mar 24 03:48 PM

[jack kreg:]

Sterman must be commended, as an engineer, the CTL refinery is a no-brainer, even if it only moved 1/4 of our energy dollar flow away from the Middle East, and was paid to an American Energy Industry and its employee's. These jobs will not be outsourced. Don't let the warming croud hold this back, in 5 or 10 years, they won't be able to explain the credible data that the earth has cooled. It is already starting, as solar evidence is a leading indicator. Stay with CTL, the American Energy Industry and its American employee's.

2008 Mar 24 04:38 PM

[DougM:]

Well, then why not expand domestic oil production by allowing states to open up costal areas and ANWR to drilling? Because of inelasticity in both supply and demand, a small increase in domestic supply could bring the market price down by a large percentage and have the effect of lowering our imports as measured in dollars. OPEC leaders must be laughing their arses off when we ask them to increase production but won't produce our own reserves.

2008 Mar 24 05:02 PM

[Saul Sterman:]

I would like to thank all of the above commentators for your thoughts and insights.

There is just one item that I would like to expound upon as this was not sufficiently clear in my article (pun intended as explained below).

You must have all noticed that I am not referring to the Air Force project as CTL, instead opting for a new homemade acronym "CLEAR".

Though the Air Force is coy on the specific details, we do get enough information that implies that we are dealing with a more advance technology than conventional CTL.

"The Air Force is adamant it can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal into a "green fuel," by capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced during manufacturing.

However, that would not address emissions from burning the fuel, said Robert Williams, a senior research scientist at Princeton University. To do more than simply break even, the industry must reduce the amount of coal used in the synthetic-fuel blend and supplement it with a fuel derived from plants, Williams said.

Air force officials said they were investigating that possibility."

As I stated in the article, I am not an expert in this field. However, I am familiar (to a degree) with the Fischer Tropsch technique. Likewsie, I have some (limited) understanding of Bergius and Schroeder processes; thus concluding that they are not in play. It sounds to me more in line with low temperature carbonization where the output is really a bio fuel cocktail relying on hay or something from the grass family (not plants as mentioned in the article).

If I am not mistaken, China has already built such a unit and has been producing liquids since late 2007. I believe that the basic technology is based on the Karrick process (just because it makes sense to me), though I do not have any documented information on the subject.

The advantage of the Karrick process as per Wikipedia:
======================...
Karrick processing of 1 short ton of coal yields up to 1 barrel of coal tars (12% by weight), richer in lighter hydrocarbons than normal coal tar and suitable for processing into fuels, 3000 cubic feet of rich fuel gas and 1500 pounds of solid smokeless char or semi-coke (for one metric ton, 0.175 m³ of coal tars, 95 m³ of gas, and 750 kg of semi-coke).

Smokeless char can be used for utility boilers and cooking coal in steel smelters, yields more heat than raw coal and can be converted to water gas. Water gas can be converted to oil by the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Coal gas from Karrick LTC yields greater energy content than natural gas.

Phenolic wastes are used by the chemical industry as feedstock for plastics, etc. Electrical power can be cogenerated at nominal cost. Karrick LTC process generates carbon dioxide.
======================...

If my understanding is correct, the Air Force is claiming that it has licked th Co2 problem, gets the advantages mentioned above (see the intended usage breakdown in the AP article) and is figuring out a way to blend the diesel product with other bio fuels for better burning emissions as well.

I trust this CLEARs things up a bit!

Thanks,
Saul

2008 Mar 24 08:00 PM

[Chuck Allen:]

I'm not claiming to know what everything means in your article, but I admire your frankness in calling a spade a spade.

All of us citizens must become willing to go with the flow in conserving consumption and energy. (Turn off the lights when you leave the room, etc.)

Chuck Allen

2008 Mar 25 09:47 AM

[ironist15:]

Thanks for your article, Saul. I agree with your thesis - substitution is the key to solving many of our energy problems. Unfortunately, the press has been totally irresponsible and alarmed the public about global warming and nuclear power, among other subjects. If we can overcome these prejudices, there are many applications for nuclear process heat in the production of liquid fuels. Such process heat can be used to extract and refine bitumen from oil sands and shales, to produce CLEAR product, etc. Of course, I also agree that plug-in vehicles make lots of sense, and they could be charged by nuclear-produced electricity. As vboring and DougM note, breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing could stretch our fissile fuel supplies indefinitely while reducing waste volumes. I am not a fan of Pigovian taxes to reduce demand since feeding the government monster always results in lower productivity and standards of living.

2008 Mar 25 10:39 AM

[WayneS:]

In the seventies I participated in "coal gasification" research in college. We produced methane at greater than 70 percent efficiency from carbon dioxide and water. This was not economical at that time and maybe not now. We seem to be starting all over on alternative energies. We were also working on breaking down the asphaltenes in tar sands, on site using microbes (fermentation) into pumpable crude. Also, at that time, I was using gasohol in my car. Incidentally, in the early eighties Exxon started to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide, due to studies they did in global warming. Exxon was doing research into numerous alternative energies. This all stopped when the bottom fell out in the middle eighties. If technology, technology, technology is the answer, why are we looking at things that didn't work 30 years ago and not something new?

2008 Apr 09 02:43 PM

[Ale:]

My idea

I was following the meeting about Health Care today…Obesity, Prevention…Also the news on CNN… There was an interview with a lady that had already gone through another recession and she was giving tips. One of her tips was to save leftovers and don’t throw them away. It left me puzzled: shouldn’t we do that on a regular basis? I personally hate to throw away food. It seems obvious that we don’t need to survive this recession, we need to change habits, values, right from the roots or else we will find ourselves facing the same problems over and over again. We all need to change, for a real change! We don’t have to throw away leftovers in bad and in good times!!!

I cannot remember what train of thoughts made me realize how we could solve a lot of today’s issues.
It may sound silly to some of you, but believe me it’s not…not at all actually. That’s why I decided to write down my idea.

Think about it!

Kids (the roots of our society) growing up eating junk food (obesity, diabetes, cholesterol, heart problems)
Kids not being properly followed (crime, drugs, alcohol, gangs)
The list can go on and on about today’s family issues…

What is really missing? The role of a Mother…therefore a family the way it used to be.

There has been talk about stay at home moms being paid for what they do…wouldn’t now be the right time to create this new government job??? Wouldn’t it be money very well spent?

It will have to be regulated and very well conceived but wouldn’t it be a great step ahead in our society??? The United States of America being the first country in the world to give women this wonderful opportunity.

Who can deny the irreplaceable role of a mother in the family, in the community, in the society!!! This role has been abandoned because nobody ever recognized it as the most important, as a position of great responsibility: the future of humanity.

It will have to be regulated as any other job: application, interview, training (not all women can cook, for example) etc., etc.

Families will be saving money now dedicated to daycares, restaurant food (therefore health), gas and much more as well as a lot of trouble and stress that can even destroy a marriage.

I would love to know how many women would trade their jobs for this! Or men! Why not!

This “new” job will free up other “outside” jobs…It will create more jobs for those who will have to supervise it (just like a job from home) and it would benefit every aspect of our communities.

Thank you for reading my message.

Mar 05 10:10 PM