6 ms·

I think the issue is way worse than all this, and way harder to solve - we're basically on the edge of the roaring 20s. inflation is high because companies are

I think the issue is way worse than all this, and way harder to solve - we're basically on the edge of the roaring 20s. inflation is high because companies are increase profit margin, and companies are increasing margin because there isn't enough competition. Companies would never voluntarily lower profitability, and are rewarded for short term actions, incl. layoffs, which are gutting long term stability of these companies. People, businesses, governments are increasingly indebted compared to prior generations. Housing in productive cities is way below demands, while there's empty houses in Detroit and Cleveland. Even with remote work (which is being clawed back), this isn't stabilizing and there isn't enough housing (esp. affordably). It takes years before that much housing can be built, assuming we legalize it (YIMBY v NIMBY). We don't have a strong growing population without immigration so there is no future generation big enough in this economic Ponzi scheme. The working class (with housing and all that) are screwed, while the rich get richer. Eventually there's no where left to turn for profitability though - and no more debt Wall Street can issue to keep the spending up. Then what?

anonyfox 4y ago
Then finally the 99% screwed people realize that this is where (crony) capitalism is supposed to end up in the long run. Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough.
- bhawks 4y ago
  > Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough. Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse. OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    My point is that people should not have to serve or suffer for the system, but the system has to work for them. There is more than enough wealth for everyone, it’s only a distribution problem. For that, modern tech surely can help
    - bhawks 4y ago
      The people created the system though - indirectly thru flawed / corrupt leaders but you get what you get. I'd like to understand now why we'd get a better set of leaders if we tear it all down now. I personally don't have any observations indicating why that would be true. Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? I'd imagine that a small subset of people would quickly game whatever system is devised and we're back at square one again.
      - anonyfox 4y ago
        Just for demonstration purposes: imagine we get rid of voting alltogether. Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions. This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task. I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
        bhawks 4y ago
        Instinctively I love term limits - however they are already in place in many states and there are many studies indicating mixed results at best - see: https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-te... A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
- bsaul 4y ago
  everytime i hear someone talk about redistribution i wonder if they're asking to have more money, or if they'd be happy if the redistribution made them poorer.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    Neither. More like: if you are sick, you can go to a doc for free, he is paid for by the public. Want to become a doc? Get that education for free, including some monthly money to live during studying. Those teachers? Same thing, paid for by the public. Or you can travel with great public transport, for free. It’s not that I want more money, taken away from the rich, but the realization that everyone including me is much better off of everyone around also is taken care of. Strong public services are key. Ontop of that, even more radical, companies should be run by the people working in it instead of shareholders siphoning out profits. Workers would never fire each other for more profits, or evade taxes that fund their neighborhood, or offshore their own jobs. Currently that might not be legal, that’s why it would need forceful redistribution. Even on the simplest level: if you have free access to education/healthcare/… imagine how many brilliant people can try to become entrepreneurs or researchers instead of having to suffer two service jobs to provide their family. It’s statistics, that 60%+ of the population might include the next Einsteins, but are unnoticed and their potential wasted.
    - ricardobayes 4y ago
      Interestingly, becoming an enterpreneur is really uncommon in Europe, where all you said was free. I think it actually has an inverse effect.
      - anonyfox 4y ago
        There several reasons for that, but one key thing is that people do not, in general, desperatly dream of the „get rich quick“ to escape their life situation. A big share is simply well off, taken care of if there are problems, and live their live in good conditions. I am fine with not every useless thing to exist and waste resources on that.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  I dont think we have a very strong culture of leaders and an informed populace currently to definitely state that whatever comes after is better The current system was forget in the furncace of extreme bravery and duty . A fledging nation was taking on the superpower of the time (UK). Every single founding father was taking direct personal risk to themselves and their families by declaring indeoendence. The level of bravery needed for this is astonishing. The people doing this literally had no self-interest in doing so. What leaders can you find today with the same sense of duty that are able to negotiate this country into a better deal? The answer is there arent any and anything new we put in place today will look like a disaster vs what we have now. Its insane to discard a 250yr old system that has outlived 2 world wars and most competing systems, because some of its features have been gamed. Instead, you make mods. (Term limits being one).
- zpeti 4y ago
  So the solution to crony capitalism that has been taken over by big corporations and lobbyists manipulating the government is… More government. Please explain the logic behind this. Surely the solution is smaller government, no lobbying or money in government at all?
crtified 4y ago
Several fair points there. The unmentioned element is Environmental / Climate. That is, even if we could instantly magic into completion, all of the affordable housing to meet all global demand, and give it free to all who require it - as in, "hey! problems solved! enjoy your new homes, everybody!" - then the simple environmental load of doing that would put us quite significantly further on the road to ruin, in and of itself. Climate change is here and will increase, so any human strategy involving "speed up! do more stuff! build more stuff!" is also inevitably an Own Goal in some respect. Even some things that we consider to be desperately needed for this or that societal reason.
- zpeti 4y ago
  First off, the actual scientists, like the ones at the IPCC say climate change will only slow growth, it won’t ruin us. Your point - is basically what most well off (and since you’re on HN I assume you’re better off than 80-90% of the world) are now saying about climate change, screw the poor, they need to have expensive energy, expensive food, and according to you no affordable housing. Why? Because you think the world will be ruined, because that’s what your media is telling you, and you haven’t even looked at the scientific facts on this. You know, maybe you should give up all your possession and live on rice and beans for the next 10 years, knowing you’ve done your bit for the climate, and then see how you feel. Edit: removed personal attack at the end. It was unnecessary.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    I was with you until the last sentence. Why the vitriol? This is fundamentally a hard problem and I have a hard time defining an attitude towards climate change that I feel 100% good about.
  - crtified 4y ago
    That's a whole lot of traits and mindsets you've unfairly assigned to me. And that's part of the perennial problem with discussion nowadays. It's near impossible to speak without being pigeonholed and caricatured : "omg! you dared to tangentially hint that prioritising building comes with some downsides! one of them! you must, therefore, also hold this, this, this, and this unfavourable worldview! how horrid you are!!". It's all a bit silly. And ironic, because I'm actually disabled, and on a really tiny income within the scale of my country. I already make my difference by living a low impact life, practicing what I preach. I'm in my 40's and I've never owned a car, and it's not because I can't drive. I consume so much less than my countrypeople, in general in life. While my friend is earning, and consuming, $150K worth of "whatever" per year, goods, consumables, flights here and there for this and that luxury frivolity, raising his kids rich-person style, I'm living a simple life at home making a lot out of a little. There'll be no kids for me. Screw the poor?? I am one of the poor. Regardless, I still see the basic Occam's reality that our species as it stands (and with massive inertia) is currently saturating this planet's resources in many different ways. And the mindset that we can fix everything by getting busy will always be somewhat paradoxical. Because, as you point out, everything we need is already right there, stockpiled in the hands of a greedy minority.
christkv 4y ago
Don't forget that we are entering into a new cold (lukewarm) war over the next couple of years if this keep going which will require a complete re-jig of the entire world economic infrastructure as things are going to have to brought back and produced locally or near-shored to friendly countries. I can't see this not affecting inflation as cost of goods will increase.
- nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
  I have a hunch this has been happenomg for a while. Less food to go around, for example, as a major fertilizer exporter is currently fighting a land war on their territory.
- rnk 4y ago
  There will also be many more manufacturing jobs in the west, that will be really good for people that don't have access to a good job today. I wonder what that will do to inflation with more people better employed.
stephen_g 4y ago
Go back to the pre-neoliberal tax rates and have the highest income tax brackets go up to 60-70%?
- QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
  Hell, restore the exact tax code from the end of the Reagan presidency and call it the “Reagan was right bill”. It would still be a massive step towards a balanced budget
  - dantheman 4y ago
    Even better go the spending levels from back then.
    - pibechorro 4y ago
      Ding ding.
    - me_again 4y ago
      It's interesting to play out what it means in more detail. Try one of the many online 'balance the budget" games like https://us.abalancingact.com/2022-federal-budget https://us.abalancingact.com/2022-federal-budget . Total federal outlays in 1989 were $1,143,744M in today's dollars. That's less than is currently spent on Medicare and Medicaid, ignoring everything else in the budget. So you'll have to make some pretty substantial alterations.
      - tl 4y ago
        Your tool does not allow for classic federal tax rates. It caps in the high 30s claiming higher taxes "do not work" in spite of the fact tax rates were double that for decades.
        me_again 4y ago
        Interesting, perhaps this isn't the best one. It's more the exercise of trying to tweak revenue and spending that I am recommending than this particular site. Otherwise people seem to imagine that the problem is much easier than it is.
smmn88 4y ago
Why don't you all come and join us in Europe? We have what you are looking for: - Universal high quality health care - Free education including high quality universities - Cheap or even free quality childcare - A social system that has everyone's back if shit hits the fan No need to introduce socialism as some here seem to advocate. History has shown that this fails 100 out of 100 times, and it's been tried in every thinkable constellation. Europe IMO has a better approach vs the US - still enough incentives to work hard, but aiming to afford everyone a humane existence. The main threat I see is that the balance is shifted too much to socialism over here, stifling innovation and ultimately destroying the wealth that funds all these goodies.
- pibechorro 4y ago
  Because its a slippery slope. A little socialism always leads to too much.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Why call out the fallacy by name when you use it?
- jhbadger 4y ago
  Part of the problem is that "socialism" is such a vague term, at least in the US. The most prominent self-defined socialist in the US, Bernie Sanders, doesn't want a Bolshevik revolution but basically just move the US to be more like Canada and Western Europe with increased safety nets and universal health care and free/cheap university education. On the other hand, yes, there are various fringe groups who are actually into Marx and collective ownership of everything despite the disasters they led to historically.
  - smmn88 4y ago
    Look at comments further below - "forceful redistribution" etc. This is as bad as it gets and I think people don't know what they are talking about. Eastern Germany started this way - "no one is intending to build a wall" they said, until one day, it was there.
patrick451 4y ago
> Even with remote work (which is being clawed back), this isn't stabilizing and there isn't enough housing (esp. affordably). It takes years before that much housing can be built, assuming we legalize it (YIMBY v NIMBY). We don't have a strong growing population without immigration so there is no future generation big enough in this economic Ponzi scheme. So stop immigration, let the population contract, and the housing problem takes care of itself.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  It'll take time for that many people to die off and free up housing, plus who will work the jobs? Who will buy the stuff? We need more workers (record low unemployment in 2023), and more consumers (to generate more profits without more profit margins), and more tax payers (to cover fixed government costs). We should basically open the borders, and enforce that those entering work fairly against Americans to keep them from driving down wages. This wouldn't be an issue if the business acted respectably.

anonyfox 4y ago

Then finally the 99% screwed people realize that this is where (crony) capitalism is supposed to end up in the long run. Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough.

bhawks 4y ago
> Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough. Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse. OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.
- anonyfox 4y ago
  My point is that people should not have to serve or suffer for the system, but the system has to work for them. There is more than enough wealth for everyone, it’s only a distribution problem. For that, modern tech surely can help
  - bhawks 4y ago
    The people created the system though - indirectly thru flawed / corrupt leaders but you get what you get. I'd like to understand now why we'd get a better set of leaders if we tear it all down now. I personally don't have any observations indicating why that would be true. Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? I'd imagine that a small subset of people would quickly game whatever system is devised and we're back at square one again.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      Just for demonstration purposes: imagine we get rid of voting alltogether. Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions. This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task. I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
      - bhawks 4y ago
        Instinctively I love term limits - however they are already in place in many states and there are many studies indicating mixed results at best - see: https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-te... A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
bsaul 4y ago
everytime i hear someone talk about redistribution i wonder if they're asking to have more money, or if they'd be happy if the redistribution made them poorer.
- anonyfox 4y ago
  Neither. More like: if you are sick, you can go to a doc for free, he is paid for by the public. Want to become a doc? Get that education for free, including some monthly money to live during studying. Those teachers? Same thing, paid for by the public. Or you can travel with great public transport, for free. It’s not that I want more money, taken away from the rich, but the realization that everyone including me is much better off of everyone around also is taken care of. Strong public services are key. Ontop of that, even more radical, companies should be run by the people working in it instead of shareholders siphoning out profits. Workers would never fire each other for more profits, or evade taxes that fund their neighborhood, or offshore their own jobs. Currently that might not be legal, that’s why it would need forceful redistribution. Even on the simplest level: if you have free access to education/healthcare/… imagine how many brilliant people can try to become entrepreneurs or researchers instead of having to suffer two service jobs to provide their family. It’s statistics, that 60%+ of the population might include the next Einsteins, but are unnoticed and their potential wasted.
  - ricardobayes 4y ago
    Interestingly, becoming an enterpreneur is really uncommon in Europe, where all you said was free. I think it actually has an inverse effect.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      There several reasons for that, but one key thing is that people do not, in general, desperatly dream of the „get rich quick“ to escape their life situation. A big share is simply well off, taken care of if there are problems, and live their live in good conditions. I am fine with not every useless thing to exist and waste resources on that.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
I dont think we have a very strong culture of leaders and an informed populace currently to definitely state that whatever comes after is better The current system was forget in the furncace of extreme bravery and duty . A fledging nation was taking on the superpower of the time (UK). Every single founding father was taking direct personal risk to themselves and their families by declaring indeoendence. The level of bravery needed for this is astonishing. The people doing this literally had no self-interest in doing so. What leaders can you find today with the same sense of duty that are able to negotiate this country into a better deal? The answer is there arent any and anything new we put in place today will look like a disaster vs what we have now. Its insane to discard a 250yr old system that has outlived 2 world wars and most competing systems, because some of its features have been gamed. Instead, you make mods. (Term limits being one).
zpeti 4y ago
So the solution to crony capitalism that has been taken over by big corporations and lobbyists manipulating the government is… More government. Please explain the logic behind this. Surely the solution is smaller government, no lobbying or money in government at all?

crtified 4y ago

Several fair points there. The unmentioned element is Environmental / Climate. That is, even if we could instantly magic into completion, all of the affordable housing to meet all global demand, and give it free to all who require it - as in, "hey! problems solved! enjoy your new homes, everybody!" - then the simple environmental load of doing that would put us quite significantly further on the road to ruin, in and of itself. Climate change is here and will increase, so any human strategy involving "speed up! do more stuff! build more stuff!" is also inevitably an Own Goal in some respect. Even some things that we consider to be desperately needed for this or that societal reason.

zpeti 4y ago
First off, the actual scientists, like the ones at the IPCC say climate change will only slow growth, it won’t ruin us. Your point - is basically what most well off (and since you’re on HN I assume you’re better off than 80-90% of the world) are now saying about climate change, screw the poor, they need to have expensive energy, expensive food, and according to you no affordable housing. Why? Because you think the world will be ruined, because that’s what your media is telling you, and you haven’t even looked at the scientific facts on this. You know, maybe you should give up all your possession and live on rice and beans for the next 10 years, knowing you’ve done your bit for the climate, and then see how you feel. Edit: removed personal attack at the end. It was unnecessary.
- dasil003 4y ago
  I was with you until the last sentence. Why the vitriol? This is fundamentally a hard problem and I have a hard time defining an attitude towards climate change that I feel 100% good about.
- crtified 4y ago
  That's a whole lot of traits and mindsets you've unfairly assigned to me. And that's part of the perennial problem with discussion nowadays. It's near impossible to speak without being pigeonholed and caricatured : "omg! you dared to tangentially hint that prioritising building comes with some downsides! one of them! you must, therefore, also hold this, this, this, and this unfavourable worldview! how horrid you are!!". It's all a bit silly. And ironic, because I'm actually disabled, and on a really tiny income within the scale of my country. I already make my difference by living a low impact life, practicing what I preach. I'm in my 40's and I've never owned a car, and it's not because I can't drive. I consume so much less than my countrypeople, in general in life. While my friend is earning, and consuming, $150K worth of "whatever" per year, goods, consumables, flights here and there for this and that luxury frivolity, raising his kids rich-person style, I'm living a simple life at home making a lot out of a little. There'll be no kids for me. Screw the poor?? I am one of the poor. Regardless, I still see the basic Occam's reality that our species as it stands (and with massive inertia) is currently saturating this planet's resources in many different ways. And the mindset that we can fix everything by getting busy will always be somewhat paradoxical. Because, as you point out, everything we need is already right there, stockpiled in the hands of a greedy minority.

christkv 4y ago

Don't forget that we are entering into a new cold (lukewarm) war over the next couple of years if this keep going which will require a complete re-jig of the entire world economic infrastructure as things are going to have to brought back and produced locally or near-shored to friendly countries. I can't see this not affecting inflation as cost of goods will increase.

nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
I have a hunch this has been happenomg for a while. Less food to go around, for example, as a major fertilizer exporter is currently fighting a land war on their territory.
rnk 4y ago
There will also be many more manufacturing jobs in the west, that will be really good for people that don't have access to a good job today. I wonder what that will do to inflation with more people better employed.

stephen_g 4y ago

Go back to the pre-neoliberal tax rates and have the highest income tax brackets go up to 60-70%?

QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
Hell, restore the exact tax code from the end of the Reagan presidency and call it the “Reagan was right bill”. It would still be a massive step towards a balanced budget
- dantheman 4y ago
  Even better go the spending levels from back then.
  - pibechorro 4y ago
    Ding ding.
  - me_again 4y ago
    It's interesting to play out what it means in more detail. Try one of the many online 'balance the budget" games like https://us.abalancingact.com/2022-federal-budget https://us.abalancingact.com/2022-federal-budget . Total federal outlays in 1989 were $1,143,744M in today's dollars. That's less than is currently spent on Medicare and Medicaid, ignoring everything else in the budget. So you'll have to make some pretty substantial alterations.
    - tl 4y ago
      Your tool does not allow for classic federal tax rates. It caps in the high 30s claiming higher taxes "do not work" in spite of the fact tax rates were double that for decades.
      - me_again 4y ago
        Interesting, perhaps this isn't the best one. It's more the exercise of trying to tweak revenue and spending that I am recommending than this particular site. Otherwise people seem to imagine that the problem is much easier than it is.

smmn88 4y ago

Why don't you all come and join us in Europe? We have what you are looking for: - Universal high quality health care - Free education including high quality universities - Cheap or even free quality childcare - A social system that has everyone's back if shit hits the fan No need to introduce socialism as some here seem to advocate. History has shown that this fails 100 out of 100 times, and it's been tried in every thinkable constellation. Europe IMO has a better approach vs the US - still enough incentives to work hard, but aiming to afford everyone a humane existence. The main threat I see is that the balance is shifted too much to socialism over here, stifling innovation and ultimately destroying the wealth that funds all these goodies.

pibechorro 4y ago
Because its a slippery slope. A little socialism always leads to too much.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Why call out the fallacy by name when you use it?
jhbadger 4y ago
Part of the problem is that "socialism" is such a vague term, at least in the US. The most prominent self-defined socialist in the US, Bernie Sanders, doesn't want a Bolshevik revolution but basically just move the US to be more like Canada and Western Europe with increased safety nets and universal health care and free/cheap university education. On the other hand, yes, there are various fringe groups who are actually into Marx and collective ownership of everything despite the disasters they led to historically.
- smmn88 4y ago
  Look at comments further below - "forceful redistribution" etc. This is as bad as it gets and I think people don't know what they are talking about. Eastern Germany started this way - "no one is intending to build a wall" they said, until one day, it was there.

patrick451 4y ago

> Even with remote work (which is being clawed back), this isn't stabilizing and there isn't enough housing (esp. affordably). It takes years before that much housing can be built, assuming we legalize it (YIMBY v NIMBY). We don't have a strong growing population without immigration so there is no future generation big enough in this economic Ponzi scheme. So stop immigration, let the population contract, and the housing problem takes care of itself.

vineyardmike 4y ago
It'll take time for that many people to die off and free up housing, plus who will work the jobs? Who will buy the stuff? We need more workers (record low unemployment in 2023), and more consumers (to generate more profits without more profit margins), and more tax payers (to cover fixed government costs). We should basically open the borders, and enforce that those entering work fairly against Americans to keep them from driving down wages. This wouldn't be an issue if the business acted respectably.