#1 sounds like a nice idea in theory, but guaranteed work is ultimately nothing but a pipe dream, especially if we foolishly try to accomplish it through the public sector and/or non-profit organizations.

The public sector just means the government sector, so really that would have a negative impact on our overall economy, as everything would be paid for with taxes, which of course would have to come from large, profitable companies. Honestly, do these people not understand that government's primary source of income is through taxes? Taking revenue away from profitable corporations in order to fund the pet projects of the government is not a good idea.

Non-profit organizations are better, but they still rely on donations and contributions from profitable business in order to succeed, so their growth is limited by the economic prosperity of for-profit enterprises.

I understand the importance of public needs projects designed to address social issues, and I can totally understand that people who participate in those types of projects do so because they have a strong desire to help their community, which is incredibly admirable. But such things need to be fueled by the productive forces of capitalism, otherwise they'll never work, and in fact could potentially have counter-productive outcomes totally opposite of what their advocates intended.

The correct way to go about these sorts of projects is through social entrepreneurship, as described in the book "The Social Capitalist," by Josh and Lisa Lannon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Capital...

Also, there would be far more jobs available in the U.S. if we were still on the gold standard and there was no minimum wage. Then companies wouldn't be forced to outsource jobs to China and India in order to turn a profit.

#2 is incredibly stupid. Do these people not understand where government gets its money from? Do they not realize that it comes from the productive efforts of companies, corporations, and businesses? Do they think that government just magically gets its money from thin air?

The Marxist idea of a utopia where people don't need to work in order to provide for themselves sounds pretty and dreamy in theory, but it's also impossible. Unless these Communists can figure out a way to make food, clothing, and shelter all just magically materialize without anyone having to work to produce them, then the necessity of work will be an unavoidable and indispensable part of life. What one man obtains without working for, another must work for without obtaining.

I'm aware that the idea of a guaranteed income is currently being considered in Switzerland, but mark my words: if Switzerland actually implements it, that will be the end of their economy.

#3 demonstrates a complete and total ignorance of how real estate works. They think landlords don't do any work? Bullshit! Landlords are the ones who invested in the property, fixed it up, made it livable, and rented it out, often at a huge personal and financial risk. Honestly, these idiots need to go read Robert Kiyosaki's book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."

They also need to get a basic understanding of Tragedy of The Commons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A...

If they truly want to fight poverty and homelessness, then they should be defending private property, not opposing it.

#4 is the singular, defining definition of Communism and Socialism. Collectivized ownership of property and the means of production is a very, very bad idea, and those who advocate it misunderstand some very basic principles about economics and human nature.

It's good to have equality of legal rights under the law. It is not good to have equality of material possessions or equality of wealth, because that just impoverishes everyone. A good helping of Ludwig von Mises is what these people need.

#5 is perhaps the only item on the list which isn't blatantly Marxist, but it's still probably not a good idea simply because getting the government involved in the banking industry could potentially open up the doors to unfathomable corruption and political looting of public treasuries by politicians and bureaucrats.

They say North Dakota already has a public bank, but I'd want to take a very close look at it to see whether or not it's really what they claim it is. My instincts tell me it's probably not, and the fact that it's isolated to North Dakota inherently means that any of its downsides will very likely be hidden because revenue from other states can help to bolster the North Dakotan economy. If such a system were implemented nationwide, these public banks would no longer have that outside revenue to hide any of the system's flaws.