You think that those individuals in favor of cutting benefits would also be in favor of purchasing bicycles for the unemployed? I might consider quitting my job to get a free bike!

@Maniac:That's the first sensible thing you've ever said! I'll go further - it's brilliant! They could be paid by the amount of electricity they generate (after taking into account that used by their 42 inch flat screen TV, Sky HD box, laptop, XBox, kettle and microwave). If they don't peddle hard enough for long enough at times if highest demand, they don't get any dole money.

@2ndWhiteLine:He means a stationary cycle turning a dynamo.

The first step is to give the plummy Etonians who are running the country into the ground the pink slip.

Putin, I agree with you!!!

Seriously the class system with its public- (read private- in the USA) school inherent snobbish bias against anyone who works with their hands (unless they are surgeons) must go. This bias applies to anyone ranging from butchers and bakers to engineers and even scientists, and is stark contrast to the situation in Germany, for example.

In all seriousness of course useful things should be found for the unemployed to do. Didn't the Americans call this - ''The New Deal'' and wasn't it thought to be rather a left-wing program?

The idea behind the New Deal was to get the economy out of a depression by giving a job to those who didn't have one. It's basically the same thing President Obama attempted to do with his stimulus: provide money to projects that provided a public benefit that could also be completed relatively quickly, so the money was spent quickly. In the New Deal, the WPA and CCC build bridges, parks, roads, and all kinds of public works projects (dams, electric grids, etc.) that are still around and functioning well today. Unfortunately, in the U.S. anyway, if that was tried today it would be met with screams of "socialism!"

And I was kidding about the bicycle comment, Alien.

Some of the New Deal programs are incredibly interesting to read about, especially the Civilian Conservation Corps. Check out their Wikipedias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

The trouble is in the UK we have such a very large number on disability living allowance rather than unemploment benefit. It is hard to believe that such a large proportion can be ''disabled'' and unavailable for work.

Would these bikes be delivered to the unemployed people's house so they could cycle in front of the TV or would they have to go to facilities (spin classes).

Maybe gyms should be attached to the grid - all that wasted energy from treadmills etc. :P

There's a hotel, in Denmark I think, that only gives you breakfast free of (monetary) charge, if you generate electricity by cycling for 30 minutes.

That's amazing. I would not have thought it would generate that much power.

I don't know if they break even, maybe it just creates the publicity the want.

I found the link [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8621038.stm], only 15 minutes apparently.

@maniac: That's a good idea, but it wouldn't be cost-effective enough to create all of those bicycle generators.But these bicycles could be supplied to many homes. Because a lot of people who do have jobs and still a lot of spare time could contribute to such a project. And such a thing could reduce obesity as well as producing energy enough to lower general costs and perhaps even the use of gas...

To bad the American New Deal was a complete failure.....duhhhh.....

It was only the massive ramping up of industry for WW II that brought us out of the depression and into economic stability. A bunch of assholes digging ditches did NOT take us otu of the depression. A bunch of insutries investing in modern technology which they could utilize for mass production AFTER the war DID take us out of the depression....especially since everyone that was a foreign economic threat was decimated in the process.

This idiotic notion that the "New Deal" brought us out of the depression is the *worst* sort of liberal/socialist lie.

To be fair, the US economy was recovering somewhat until the Republicans decided to balance the budget in 1937. Result? Another massive recession. Fuuuuuuuck. But yeah, WWII saved us for sure.

@dnWhiteLine....errr....sad, sad attempy to slam republicans here. Quite pathetic. Yeah....a "balanced budget" is such a bad thing, right? Moron...

@ 2ndWhiteLine Republicans didn't have even any semblance of power until 1938, and roosevelt himself never tried to give up balancing the budget, so blame him, not Republicans. And some of the New Deal programs were really absurd, such as the AAA, which basically "helped" farmers by destroying crops, ensuring that crop prices would rise. Nevermind the fact that millions of people were starving, who could have used that food. And World War 2 really did not save us, it only saved us to the extent that (shocker!) unemployment disappears when nearly everyone gets a a job in the military or military-related industrial plant producing war materials

@jpgredsox.....hate to disagree with you, but WW II *DID* save us, and was the only thing that did. That you find the means of salvation (war) disagreable, and it's necessity (death of many, destruction of the "normal economy, etc") does not change the fact that it also cause the U.S. to become a *massive* industrial power....and, with the destruction of any competitive manufacturing power, we became the sole manufacturing powerhouse of the world. WW II was out salvation in so many ways it isn't even funny. To deny that WW II....and WW II almost ALONE...was the salvation of our economy is to just bury your head in the sand and ignore economic truths.

i think that there is some merit to the idea, but that it quickly turns into a fallacy. if that were true, then why don't countries frequently go to war to help their economies heal? it justifies higher tax rates, and tremendous government spending and debt, both of which were very high in WW2. I think the vetoing of the smoot-hawley tariff, and the return to normal market conditions following WW2 (particularly the fact FDR was no longer in charge) really was what helped the recovery.

Your logic is completely faulty. We didn't enter WW II to solve our economic problems. But, entering WW II did just happen to solve our economic problems.

Why don't nations continually go to war to solve problems? Good god, really?? How about...sheesh, I won't even indulge that idiotic question with an answer.

WW II *converted* out economy and industrialized it. By the time WW II ended, we were a manufacturing powerhouse AND our industrial competition lay in ruins...thus we and we alone could sell to the world our manufactured products. The war caused our companies to become lean and efficient manufacturers. The war caused us to be the only suppliers of certain products to the world, because we were wealthy and could produce whatever the world needed....And there were no Unions in place to destroy companies from within.

If you can't figure out why we can't repeat this situation (global war....kill all unions, etc....) then you are truly an idiot. It was a very unique point in history....but there is no question to any reasonalbe mind that WW II brought us out of the depression. "New Deal" programs, in fact, only extended and prolonged the depression, as taxing the few profitable businesses to have a team of jackasses dig a ditch does *NOTHING* to stimulate LONG-TERM growth in an economy.

THAT is why Obama's FDR-styled "stimulus" has been a complete and absolute failure.

It's the fascist type of industry where everyone is working for the country. If everyone is working their ass off to make planes and tanks with little pay, the industry will boom and the economy will get going again. But in today's age when no one wants to actually work hard to get their pay, we don't have the support or feasible industry to support that kind of growth. Essentially, WWII was the perfect time to do so, but it's unlikely that the world will return to that postion. Otherwise, you just have a great deal of money being spent on foreign weapons products, causing enormous deficits. For now, any war will only add to economic strife.