3 ms·
As a thought experiment, I would predict that putting $80B more in the hands of the population of people in the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution would caus
by digikata 11y ago
As a thought experiment, I would predict that putting $80B more in the hands of the population of people in the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution would cause more and longer lasting economic activity than the same amount injected, for example, into the stock market. Broadly how it's working is that too much money is sticking in banks and financial markets, and not enough actually circulating in the hands of people and that's causing poor economic growth in real terms.
What does that mean for suggested fiscal or monetary policy? I don't know. I believe that capitalism makes sense at a lot of levels, but I also think that the over-accumulation of wealth unbalances the whole. The traditional proposed "solutions" to this are ineffective to me. e.g. increasing the minimum wage may do some social good but it's so far on the edges of the solving the fundamental problem it's laughable. Instituting a tax on wealth seems unworkable from a political level - and on top of that, it seems to be on the other far edge of trying to fix a problem long after the problem has occurred.
To me the fundamental problem isn't that individuals get wealth, it's that our financial system systematically approaches wages to be optimized down as a cost, and that companies are applauded for squeezing labor cost as equally as any other cost. So instead of investing in better training, or capital equipment, or better processes, a viable way to operate is to squeeze your employees as hard as possible. This is a process that's causing broad flow towards inequality and single worst misapplication of money flow in the economy, giving rise to the problem in the parent above. This is also a process that squeezes out the benefits of capitalism to people broadly in society.
I don't have a pat answer to solve that problem. Sometimes I wonder about a salary tax credit that looks something like an x% credit for the amount of money an employer pays in wages. It would have to be some fairly out-of-the-box proposal that shifts enough wages as a proportion of gross profits that would have an effect without fundamentally breaking down the way that capitalism does lead to benefits.