This list is emblematic of optimizing for a metric without considering the reason why we are optimizing for said metric in the first place.

The reason why it is good to have a competitive labor force is so that wages and quality of life can go up.

1,4, and 5 are in opposition to the underlying goal we want to achieve by having a competitive labor force. These propositions are trying to mitigate human suffering by... increasing human suffering? There is zero consistency here.

Just looking at #5, this is essentially a de facto ban on retirement, but it also doesn't make sense in practice because companies are already discriminating against older workers. I suppose you could argue that a shorter period of retirement would lead to decreased saving, and increased consumer spending, but I don't think the major problems with the US are currently caused by a lack of consumption.

that's an incoherent set of policy recommendations.

we sorely need regulatory reform that focuses less on specific, ideological goals and more on market dynamism and fairness, but your list is a mishmash of more regulation and less.

and just sugar, really? not the fertilizer industry? or farm equipment? or corn? or anything else? you fall down the rabbit hole really fast this way.

moreover, punishing old people and single parents isn't going to make us more competitive. removing the mortgage tax deduction would though, as it'd make the housing market more efficient and dynamic, fueling growth and innovation. get rid of the implicit subsidy to housing via the government-backed mortgage companies, and we'd really get somewhere.

let's remove subsidies and price in externalities across the board, not just in some ideological subset, then you don't have to finely regulate every market and commodity, which is just begging for more regulatory capture and corruption.

1. Consumers will prefer safer conventional vehicles over shitty EVs

2. People will just burn oil

3. Add more regulations on farms - and the food will also be imported from China.

4. It probably has been decided at some point that it's cheaper to intervene while the person in their childhood, rather than dealing with adults who grew up in miserable conditions

5. It will increase labor force supply, therefore decreasing salaries. Is it the intent?

upvoted you but disagree on 1's implementation, 4 & 5 entirely. also replace Ban by disincentivise in 2.

this list is also meta indicative of problems in US political system. Dems just have to be slightly better than rethuglicans to be viable so they keep adding unwanted half baked solutions till they are barely palatable.