3 ms·
When the government decides that it's willing to do something as interventionist as bailing out literally everyone, that places a lot of political risk over the
by fennecfoxen 11y ago
When the government decides that it's willing to do something as interventionist as bailing out literally everyone, that places a lot of political risk over the financial industry as a whole. One can't be sure that intervention will always be for the best, after all.
Safety will be more valuable than ever, so those with huge lump sums of existing Capital will have even more power. We could replace modern corporate finance with good old-fashioned robber-baron family-finance operations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Gould.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoOkay, how about this: Ownership of any property or asset can only last a maximum of 50 years. After this point ownership will either revert back to the commons or can be repurchased at current market rates.
- fennecfoxen 11y agoSo in essence the government seizes all property and rents it back to us? Geez, man. Even medieval serfs could own property on better terms than that.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "So in essence the government seizes all property and rents it back to us? Geez, man. Even medieval serfs could own property on better terms than that." The ownership wouldn't transmit back to the government, it'd be converted into public property but with the option to renew ownership. Public property is not the same as government owned. The idea is to get rid of accumulation of wealth beyond a single generation, i.e. in general you only own what you earned in your own lifetime (plus some extra from the generation that preceded you).