3 ms·
Unless something completely unexpected happens in the next decade or two, it seems clear to me that there are only a couple of possible outcomes here: 1. Stay
by tmnvix 10y ago
Unless something completely unexpected happens in the next decade or two, it seems clear to me that there are only a couple of possible outcomes here:
1. Stay the course and endure further entrenchment of inequality and rising under/unemployment due to capitalism's innate tendency to concentrate wealth by favouring capital over labour (unearned vs earned income) and technological changes leading to reduced opportunities for low skilled work.
2. Bite the bullet and accept that a political solution is needed to reduce inequality (most likely through some kind of redistribution mechanism). There are plenty of historical precedents for this (Bismark's social contract, rise of the labour movement, the New Deal).
A few commonly discussed solutions are:
1. Universal Basic Income
2. Governments introducing money into the economy directly through spending on infrastructure (or UBI) rather than through assuming debt.
3. Shifting taxes away from income to assets. An example of this would be Land Value Taxes.
Personally, I am in favour of (3), with the focus being on taxing unproductive investment first. Lower income taxes and and more incentive to invest in actual businesses (rather than say, flipping houses or other speculative activity) would do a lot of good. It would be great if we had an economy where money was a bit easier to make and a little bit harder to keep. A higher velocity of money is good for an economy.
- pascalxus 10y agohere in CA, All you have to do release the tens of thousand of square miles of undeveloped land (95% of CA is still undeveloped) and build houses and roads on it. That would generate a huge number of jobs. Since housing prices are through the roof, I bet the economy could support an enormous construction increase. And, even much more if building regulations were removed to allow for really low cost housing. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone: solve the housing problem and massively increase blue collar jobs.
- grzm 10y agoA couple of questions come to mind: how much of the undeveloped land is conducive to development (e.g., too mountainous)? Having green space, undeveloped land also has value. What are the long-term trade offs of removing the green space?
- Can_Not 10y ago> with the focus being on taxing unproductive investment first. Lower income taxes and and more incentive to invest in actual businesses (rather than say, flipping houses or other speculative activity) would do a lot of good. It would be great if we had an economy where money was a bit easier to make and a little bit harder to keep. Totally agree with this. People on welfare aren't parasites, unproductive rent collectors are parasites.