3 ms·

> Really what we need to do is run more big policy experiments at the fed. I totally disagree with this. Big social policy involves/requires taxation, and a ro

by whakim 5y ago

> Really what we need to do is run more big policy experiments at the fed. I totally disagree with this. Big social policy involves/requires taxation, and a robust debate around what kind of tax regime we want to have in order to support those social policy objectives. The Fed can't collect taxes, and it doesn't involve robust debate because it's not democratic.

Ericson2314 5y ago
> it doesn't involve robust debate because it's not democratic. Fair. Let me step back a bit, I do agree the undemocratic fed is ultimately bad. But I also wouldn't want to subsume it to congress in today's state, because FTPT, Senate, and supermajorities are not democratic, and ensure no experiments + tiny overtone window of things where are actually. I like democracy, but the problem is democracy in its current US form (parliamentary system is better but EU constitution is fucked and causes similar problems) is best at interpolating the options that have been presented. If the democratizing happens with out expanding the "doing" overtone window, it's like 100% exploitation not exploration, and we are also kinda fucked. It's frustrating because alternative democratic methods would probably be great for experimentation. Highly ideological parliament + independent civil service + sortition for skepticism is an exciting potential brew. > Big social policy involves/requires taxation No it actually doesn't, because "potential output" barely exists and to the extent it does we are nowhere near it. We can print money, and if there is inflation we can fix bottlenecks --- like WTF why isn't the port of Los Angelis twice is big by now with tons of extra rail freight capacity? When there is no obvious benefit, and labor force participation is actually high (vs the headline unemployment rate which is widely acknowledged to be bullshit) then, and only then, do we need to worry about reducing demand across the board with taxes.
- whakim 5y ago
  > I like democracy, but the problem is democracy in its current US form (parliamentary system is better but EU constitution is fucked and causes similar problems) is best at interpolating the options that have been presented. I agree with you that there are some decidedly undemocratic elements to many "democratic" systems (such as the ones you've mentioned), and to be clear I wish that was not so. But these same democratic systems have historically not just expanded the overton window, but exploded it: the advent of progressive taxation in the early 20th century; the advent of high income tax rates in the 1930s-1950s; the social welfare states that most social-democratic European governments erected in the 1950s-1970s (and the skeletal welfare state the United States erected at the same time) - just to name a few. > We can print money, and if there is inflation we can fix bottlenecks We can't just print money to the extent that's required for the really big policy changes. You want a UBI? A universal capital endowment? Free health care? These things require significant revenue to sustain year after year after year. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, there just isn't a free lunch. And the US is the most likely to be able to get away with it: there are plenty of nations that don't entirely control their monetary policies (EU countries, for example)
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    > But these same democratic systems have historically not just expanded the overton window, but exploded it It seems when the rate of change is endogenously high, things have happened in the US, but now with more stagnation the many veto points strikes harder. > We can't just print money to the extent that's required for the really big policy changes. I still disagree. Free healthcare especially can save money because the current thing is so inefficient --- though in the first few years I expect the backlog of "deferred maintenance" to get in the way. Unpayed UBI is scarier, but I think we can still try it. There might an awkward adjustment period, but I wouldn't be surprised if it his a new steady state. > And the US is the most likely to be able to get away with it Yes Last thing to consider is the MMT reversal scenario, where the technocrats just worry about reaching "potential", and quantitative stuff ensuring enough spending and taxing, and the politicians decide the qualitative stuff, and also what level of inflation is acceptable -- because it is still a subjective decision somewhat. In particular, doing a UBI first might be the best way to force higher taxes: people will fight harder to keep their existing UBI than they will to get a UBI in the first place, so with inflation vs loosing it vs more taxes or JG (which is supply and demand of a sort), the latter options might have a better shot.

by whakim 5y ago

Ericson2314 5y ago

> it doesn't involve robust debate because it's not democratic. Fair. Let me step back a bit, I do agree the undemocratic fed is ultimately bad. But I also wouldn't want to subsume it to congress in today's state, because FTPT, Senate, and supermajorities are not democratic, and ensure no experiments + tiny overtone window of things where are actually. I like democracy, but the problem is democracy in its current US form (parliamentary system is better but EU constitution is fucked and causes similar problems) is best at interpolating the options that have been presented. If the democratizing happens with out expanding the "doing" overtone window, it's like 100% exploitation not exploration, and we are also kinda fucked. It's frustrating because alternative democratic methods would probably be great for experimentation. Highly ideological parliament + independent civil service + sortition for skepticism is an exciting potential brew. > Big social policy involves/requires taxation No it actually doesn't, because "potential output" barely exists and to the extent it does we are nowhere near it. We can print money, and if there is inflation we can fix bottlenecks --- like WTF why isn't the port of Los Angelis twice is big by now with tons of extra rail freight capacity? When there is no obvious benefit, and labor force participation is actually high (vs the headline unemployment rate which is widely acknowledged to be bullshit) then, and only then, do we need to worry about reducing demand across the board with taxes.

whakim 5y ago
> I like democracy, but the problem is democracy in its current US form (parliamentary system is better but EU constitution is fucked and causes similar problems) is best at interpolating the options that have been presented. I agree with you that there are some decidedly undemocratic elements to many "democratic" systems (such as the ones you've mentioned), and to be clear I wish that was not so. But these same democratic systems have historically not just expanded the overton window, but exploded it: the advent of progressive taxation in the early 20th century; the advent of high income tax rates in the 1930s-1950s; the social welfare states that most social-democratic European governments erected in the 1950s-1970s (and the skeletal welfare state the United States erected at the same time) - just to name a few. > We can print money, and if there is inflation we can fix bottlenecks We can't just print money to the extent that's required for the really big policy changes. You want a UBI? A universal capital endowment? Free health care? These things require significant revenue to sustain year after year after year. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, there just isn't a free lunch. And the US is the most likely to be able to get away with it: there are plenty of nations that don't entirely control their monetary policies (EU countries, for example)
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > But these same democratic systems have historically not just expanded the overton window, but exploded it It seems when the rate of change is endogenously high, things have happened in the US, but now with more stagnation the many veto points strikes harder. > We can't just print money to the extent that's required for the really big policy changes. I still disagree. Free healthcare especially can save money because the current thing is so inefficient --- though in the first few years I expect the backlog of "deferred maintenance" to get in the way. Unpayed UBI is scarier, but I think we can still try it. There might an awkward adjustment period, but I wouldn't be surprised if it his a new steady state. > And the US is the most likely to be able to get away with it Yes Last thing to consider is the MMT reversal scenario, where the technocrats just worry about reaching "potential", and quantitative stuff ensuring enough spending and taxing, and the politicians decide the qualitative stuff, and also what level of inflation is acceptable -- because it is still a subjective decision somewhat. In particular, doing a UBI first might be the best way to force higher taxes: people will fight harder to keep their existing UBI than they will to get a UBI in the first place, so with inflation vs loosing it vs more taxes or JG (which is supply and demand of a sort), the latter options might have a better shot.