4 ms·
One possible mechanism is a social wealth fund that would gradually come to own (and distribute the proceeds from) a nontrivial portion of the national capital.
by davmre 9y ago
One possible mechanism is a social wealth fund that would gradually come to own (and distribute the proceeds from) a nontrivial portion of the national capital. Matt Bruenig wrote a NYTimes oped about this idea:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/inequality-social-wealth-fund.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/inequality-social...
with some suggestions for populating the fund:
> Wouldn’t the enormous wealth that our increasingly productive society is generating, which now flows into just a few pockets, be a fair source? Some of the concrete ways this could happen are through the transfer of existing federal assets like land, buildings and portions of the wireless spectrum into the new fund. Other measures could include increases in taxes on capital that affect mostly the wealthy such as estate, dividend and financial transaction taxes and the creation of a new type of corporate tax that requires companies to directly issue new shares to the social wealth fund on an annual basis and during certain corporate moves such as initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions.
> Another way to bring assets into the fund would be to modify the way the Federal Reserve pumps money into the economy. Currently, the central bank does that by buying up Treasury bonds. If instead we used newly created money to buy up stocks that are then deposited into the social wealth fund, it would gradually socialize wealth ownership without the need to raise taxes on anyone. As Roger Farmer and Miles Kimball have argued, these kinds of asset purchases could also be ramped up during recessions, allowing the federal government to acquire significant portions of the national wealth relatively cheaply while also stabilizing financial markets and stimulating the economy."
Noah Smith makes the additional economic case that a social wealth fund is a buffer against decreasing labor share of income driven by technological change:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-05/robot-takeover-matters-less-if-we-re-all-shareholders https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-05/robot-tak...
- coffeemug 9y agoThanks for pointing to this; I've heard of the idea before, but never as cogently argued for. The NYT article is a really, really good read.
- creaghpatr 9y agoI mean sure, you could seize the means of production and capital and pump a bunch of currency into the economy, but that's just textbook communism. This is literally what Venezuela did with its oil supply.
- davmre 9y ago'Textbook' communism involves the government directly managing the means of production. Owning a minority stake in many corporations that are run for profit by incentivized managers in a market economy has, perhaps, some similarities but it's certainly not the same thing. I'm not sure you can generalize Venezuela's collapse beyond a cautionary tale of corruption and populist looting; i.e., their economic problems are fundamentally political problems. A better comparison for a developed Western democracy with competent political system is Norway, which has an amazingly successful ($1 trillion) sovereign wealth fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor... comprised of oil revenue used to fund social programs.