3 ms·

no, investors need no additional incentive to invest. they squarely chose to take the risk, and will do so regardless of boondoggles like this, because they hav

no, investors need no additional incentive to invest. they squarely chose to take the risk, and will do so regardless of boondoggles like this, because they have no better alternative (i.e., opportunity cost impels them). it's the same fallacious argument used to keep progressive taxes at bay (oh noes, the rich people will leave america for... ???). let them fail. it's not a social problem in the slightest. the social safety net should cushion those at the bottom, certainly not those at the top, or in most cases, not even those in the middle. certainly it means more political opposition in the form of money, but not in votes, which is the more pertinent metric.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>no, investors need no additional incentive to invest. That is not true. Greater incentives translates to more investment, and more investment is socially beneficial. >>it's the same fallacious argument used to keep progressive taxes at bay (oh noes, the rich people will leave america for... ???). There is nothing fallacious about this argument. Disincentives to investment lead to less investment. Less investment means less gains in productivity and wages, which also means less taxable income that can support the mandatorily funded safety net leftists support. >>certainly it means more political opposition in the form of money, but not in votes, which is the more pertinent metric. Historically, measures that threaten major special interests are difficult to pass due to the opposition they face. Ignoring that is putting ideology ahead of pragmatic results.
- clairity 5y ago
  no, investment may move, but it doesn't simply vanish. wealth managers would be fired for holding investible funds in cash (which is what withholding investment means--that's the opportunity cost mentioned earlier). historically, disenfranchised masses revolt, violently. bonus point: a more equitable distribution of wealth would lead to smarter investment overall and a more productive economy.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>no, investment may move, but it doesn't simply vanish. wealth managers would be fired for holding investible funds in cash (which is what withholding investment means--that's the opportunity cost mentioned earlier). The percentage of income invested fluctuates, based on factors that include security of property rights and expected return on investment. Creating a reliable regulatory and tax regime would mean greater annual inflow of money into investments. >>historically, disenfranchised masses revolt, violently. All the better then to remove the obstacles to the enfranchisement of the masses, by offering compensation to the current beneficiaries of rent-extracting institutions in exchange for recruiting them in the drive to abolish these institutions. Violent revolutions that overturn power structures are actually quite rare and far more common is persistence of structural forces of rent-extraction for decades or centuries, and thus the threat of revolution is not an effective motivator for those in power to relinquish their privileges. The pragmatic reality is that we are more likely to get to a more just and efficient economy without these structures if we reach a settlement that removes the opposition of these structures' beneficiaries from the drive to eliminate them. >>bonus point: a more equitable distribution of wealth would lead to smarter investment overall and a more productive economy. Another bonus of eliminating rent-seeking institutions is that it reduces wealth inequality. Compensation to expedite the removal of a structural force that contributes to wealth inequality would likely be a net-gain for equity in the distribution of wealth, because the former is a one-time action while the latter has a recurring impact.
    - clairity 5y ago
      no, those are poor economic prescriptions that further entrench wealth in fewer hands to the detriment of the economy as a whole. investment will happen regardless. the money literally has nowhere else to go. this is really not a hard or controversial point. investors and politicians, on the other hand, like to say things like "investment will go away", but those are lies told to the susceptible to get pet policies enacted, not to reflect reality, better the economy, or improve the lives of ordinary citizens. history books are literally chocked full of governments being overturned, and it's happened dozens of times in the past century. it's anything but rare.
closeparen 5y ago
There is nothing to buy with your social safety net payments unless investors are taking risks on the businesses that make and sell it. You can't just abolish private property from within capitalism and leave it there. Once you have taken that step you have to go all the way to state-controlled production. Although again, the Georgist point is that this is specifically not true for land: the land is there whether you invest in it or not.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>no, investors need no additional incentive to invest. That is not true. Greater incentives translates to more investment, and more investment is socially beneficial. >>it's the same fallacious argument used to keep progressive taxes at bay (oh noes, the rich people will leave america for... ???). There is nothing fallacious about this argument. Disincentives to investment lead to less investment. Less investment means less gains in productivity and wages, which also means less taxable income that can support the mandatorily funded safety net leftists support. >>certainly it means more political opposition in the form of money, but not in votes, which is the more pertinent metric. Historically, measures that threaten major special interests are difficult to pass due to the opposition they face. Ignoring that is putting ideology ahead of pragmatic results.

clairity 5y ago
no, investment may move, but it doesn't simply vanish. wealth managers would be fired for holding investible funds in cash (which is what withholding investment means--that's the opportunity cost mentioned earlier). historically, disenfranchised masses revolt, violently. bonus point: a more equitable distribution of wealth would lead to smarter investment overall and a more productive economy.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>no, investment may move, but it doesn't simply vanish. wealth managers would be fired for holding investible funds in cash (which is what withholding investment means--that's the opportunity cost mentioned earlier). The percentage of income invested fluctuates, based on factors that include security of property rights and expected return on investment. Creating a reliable regulatory and tax regime would mean greater annual inflow of money into investments. >>historically, disenfranchised masses revolt, violently. All the better then to remove the obstacles to the enfranchisement of the masses, by offering compensation to the current beneficiaries of rent-extracting institutions in exchange for recruiting them in the drive to abolish these institutions. Violent revolutions that overturn power structures are actually quite rare and far more common is persistence of structural forces of rent-extraction for decades or centuries, and thus the threat of revolution is not an effective motivator for those in power to relinquish their privileges. The pragmatic reality is that we are more likely to get to a more just and efficient economy without these structures if we reach a settlement that removes the opposition of these structures' beneficiaries from the drive to eliminate them. >>bonus point: a more equitable distribution of wealth would lead to smarter investment overall and a more productive economy. Another bonus of eliminating rent-seeking institutions is that it reduces wealth inequality. Compensation to expedite the removal of a structural force that contributes to wealth inequality would likely be a net-gain for equity in the distribution of wealth, because the former is a one-time action while the latter has a recurring impact.
  - clairity 5y ago
    no, those are poor economic prescriptions that further entrench wealth in fewer hands to the detriment of the economy as a whole. investment will happen regardless. the money literally has nowhere else to go. this is really not a hard or controversial point. investors and politicians, on the other hand, like to say things like "investment will go away", but those are lies told to the susceptible to get pet policies enacted, not to reflect reality, better the economy, or improve the lives of ordinary citizens. history books are literally chocked full of governments being overturned, and it's happened dozens of times in the past century. it's anything but rare.

closeparen 5y ago

There is nothing to buy with your social safety net payments unless investors are taking risks on the businesses that make and sell it. You can't just abolish private property from within capitalism and leave it there. Once you have taken that step you have to go all the way to state-controlled production. Although again, the Georgist point is that this is specifically not true for land: the land is there whether you invest in it or not.