3 ms·

A counterpoint is that if the government was doing this instead, it meant government buying stocks collectively with the money taken from people as payroll taxe

A counterpoint is that if the government was doing this instead, it meant government buying stocks collectively with the money taken from people as payroll taxes, then distribute the proceeds. But it will mean government owning means of production, and on enormous scale - almost a textbook definition of communism. It was both politically impassable, and also will inevitably end up in a massive disaster if actually tried, will make entire economy into a charade of manipulation. People will start companies with a specific goal of getting "on the list" of those government will buy, instead of a goal of making money, as a result giving birth to monsters. Huge fortunes will be made by tricksters teaching people how to build these companies for them to appear more plausible, and these tricksters will be same people who will make the decisions, through the revolving door system. It will be hard to do any macroeconomic regulation because say, increasing interest rates will mean the government directly loses money because stocks fall. Every conservative politician will love to see the huge mess a decision like this would produce, will be the best proof of Republican "government is bad" philosophy. For someone born in the Soviet Union, this idea sticks so bad there's not a slightest inclination to try it out. Other approach is "the government should directly own the productive assets it creates itself, not buys on the market", but that will create an even bigger conflict of interest (government will have to make sure those pesky private businesses don't compete with it), it will be truly a resurrection of the Soviet Union, and a wall will soon be needed to keep people in, rather than to keep them out. Been there, done that. No need to repeat the same to arrive to the same result again.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
moi2388 2y ago
That’s exactly what pension funds in Europe do, though. Private organisations, sure, but you are required by law to join one. And often per job type there is one (or two) which you then have to pick.
- anovikov 2y ago
  Doing so will mean turning American economy to the like of European. That is, socialism, generational stagnation and people checking checkboxes rather than doing things. Why not just educate people into investing better instead? It has a side consequence of (purely by chance) making some people multimillionaire heirs simply because their granny lived a very long life and markets were good, thus creating a lot of surplus money to spend or invest. Old people tend to be stingy so that money is unlikely to be spent before their death.
  - wormlord 2y ago
    The US model relies on perpetual growth, when in reality the problem is "do we have enough people to take care of the elderly". The issue is one of physical capital and human capital. The answer today is YES we have enough of both of those things to take care of our elderly, however we direct that human labor and capital towards things that produce more "value". There is very little value in taking care of old people. Unless the government mandates that some proportion of the economy is dedicated to taking care of the elderly and expecting nothing in return, we are forced to rely on ponzi schemes. And yes, this may be "socialism" but who cares? The government already owns all the land and all the dollars in circulation, they just lend them to you. The illusion of freedom is shattered for you by the word "socialism" but make no mistake this country is not some libertarian paradise.
  - Rhapso 2y ago
    > educate people into investing better instead So 401ks were intended to do this in a way. I think it was the greatest theft of a generation. "Lets incentivize and normalize the middle class to give the rich their retirement funds to play with." In general stock investment does nothing but make the distribution of wealth more and more lopsided. For every dollar gained by the poorer the rich gain more. When the rich gain more, they get to leverage the new capital to get even more next time in a positive feedback loop.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Man I hear that so much on HN. I'd never been to Europe until 2021, and I met so many happy, beautiful, productive people who enjoyed healthy food, great booze, love, and just LIFE compared to the U.S. Here on the Colorado front range it's all scrambling to keep an edge, trying not to look homeless people in the eye, taking as much as you can, working killer hours for (lots of) cash that we then blow on stupid plastic shit .... Sure many of the people I talked with complained about the government stepping on its own toes to try to increase tourism or provide grants for building new things, etc., but I also saw women walking alone in the middle of capital cities at midnight because it was perfectly safe to do so. Granted this is just one small country in Europe but if that's what socialism, generational stagnation, and people checking checkboxes looks like then sign me up. That said ... > Why not just educate people into investing better instead? Yes! This along with critical thinking about social media, lessons on how to fill out your taxes, fostering an interest in local politics over national politics, and maybe America can get its head out of its ass and actually produce happiness instead of just money.
lastyearman 2y ago
Why not take money from payroll and give directly to retirees like they do in the Nordics.
- anovikov 2y ago
  But that will mean taking a much much bigger proportion of income because now at least that money compounds while the person is working, now it will be taken and consumed directly? It means yes, European taxes (50+% total charged from employer+employee, for a median person), and poverty pensions. Any government solution also means paternalism. Which is, government deliberately makes life better for worse people, and worse for better people. It can make anyone into a Republican!
  - angelkst 2y ago
    [dead]
  - lastyearman 2y ago
    Given that life quality is quite high in the Nordics and they are happiest countries on earth I'm not so sure it's a bad system.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I experience vastly more constant interference, inconvenience, bureaucracy, stupidity, and oppression from the massive corporations we allow to run our lives in America.
- imhoguy 2y ago
  Hasn't it happened with $35T debt yet? Ugh, but it hasn't gone to retirees only.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  Isn't that what the U.S. Social Security program does?
hakfoo 2y ago
A great lever would be to require the state acquire some shares in a company in exchange for the privilege of the corporate veil/limited liability. 1. This provides a benefit in exchange for the trade-in, basically end-running the inevitable Fourth Amendment kvetching if we just eminent-domained a stock holding, and the massive up-front cost of buying shares at market. 2. It automatically diversifies the holdings-- there is no "list of what companies the state can buy", it's basically every enterprise larger than a lemonade stand. I also love the idea of giving the state voting stock in private enterprise. It will be used politically to maximize accountability. Maybe American regulators have no say about the labour or environmental conditions in a factory you run in Burkina Faso, but give those regulators 30% of the voting shares of the company and let them try to yeet the Board of Directors, I bet that gets action! I also figured a lot of the trick to solving problems like retirement and homelessness was just to move more services outside of the dollar-denominated economy. Replacing "this apartment costs $1750 per month, and next year it will be $1900" with "we are obliged by law to accept your Class J-45 Housing Ration Voucher" means there's no way to claw additional assets from the poorest people who need the produc

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

moi2388 2y ago

That’s exactly what pension funds in Europe do, though. Private organisations, sure, but you are required by law to join one. And often per job type there is one (or two) which you then have to pick.

anovikov 2y ago
Doing so will mean turning American economy to the like of European. That is, socialism, generational stagnation and people checking checkboxes rather than doing things. Why not just educate people into investing better instead? It has a side consequence of (purely by chance) making some people multimillionaire heirs simply because their granny lived a very long life and markets were good, thus creating a lot of surplus money to spend or invest. Old people tend to be stingy so that money is unlikely to be spent before their death.
- wormlord 2y ago
  The US model relies on perpetual growth, when in reality the problem is "do we have enough people to take care of the elderly". The issue is one of physical capital and human capital. The answer today is YES we have enough of both of those things to take care of our elderly, however we direct that human labor and capital towards things that produce more "value". There is very little value in taking care of old people. Unless the government mandates that some proportion of the economy is dedicated to taking care of the elderly and expecting nothing in return, we are forced to rely on ponzi schemes. And yes, this may be "socialism" but who cares? The government already owns all the land and all the dollars in circulation, they just lend them to you. The illusion of freedom is shattered for you by the word "socialism" but make no mistake this country is not some libertarian paradise.
- Rhapso 2y ago
  > educate people into investing better instead So 401ks were intended to do this in a way. I think it was the greatest theft of a generation. "Lets incentivize and normalize the middle class to give the rich their retirement funds to play with." In general stock investment does nothing but make the distribution of wealth more and more lopsided. For every dollar gained by the poorer the rich gain more. When the rich gain more, they get to leverage the new capital to get even more next time in a positive feedback loop.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Man I hear that so much on HN. I'd never been to Europe until 2021, and I met so many happy, beautiful, productive people who enjoyed healthy food, great booze, love, and just LIFE compared to the U.S. Here on the Colorado front range it's all scrambling to keep an edge, trying not to look homeless people in the eye, taking as much as you can, working killer hours for (lots of) cash that we then blow on stupid plastic shit .... Sure many of the people I talked with complained about the government stepping on its own toes to try to increase tourism or provide grants for building new things, etc., but I also saw women walking alone in the middle of capital cities at midnight because it was perfectly safe to do so. Granted this is just one small country in Europe but if that's what socialism, generational stagnation, and people checking checkboxes looks like then sign me up. That said ... > Why not just educate people into investing better instead? Yes! This along with critical thinking about social media, lessons on how to fill out your taxes, fostering an interest in local politics over national politics, and maybe America can get its head out of its ass and actually produce happiness instead of just money.

lastyearman 2y ago

Why not take money from payroll and give directly to retirees like they do in the Nordics.

anovikov 2y ago
But that will mean taking a much much bigger proportion of income because now at least that money compounds while the person is working, now it will be taken and consumed directly? It means yes, European taxes (50+% total charged from employer+employee, for a median person), and poverty pensions. Any government solution also means paternalism. Which is, government deliberately makes life better for worse people, and worse for better people. It can make anyone into a Republican!
- angelkst 2y ago
  [dead]
- lastyearman 2y ago
  Given that life quality is quite high in the Nordics and they are happiest countries on earth I'm not so sure it's a bad system.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I experience vastly more constant interference, inconvenience, bureaucracy, stupidity, and oppression from the massive corporations we allow to run our lives in America.
imhoguy 2y ago
Hasn't it happened with $35T debt yet? Ugh, but it hasn't gone to retirees only.
marssaxman 2y ago
Isn't that what the U.S. Social Security program does?

hakfoo 2y ago

A great lever would be to require the state acquire some shares in a company in exchange for the privilege of the corporate veil/limited liability. 1. This provides a benefit in exchange for the trade-in, basically end-running the inevitable Fourth Amendment kvetching if we just eminent-domained a stock holding, and the massive up-front cost of buying shares at market. 2. It automatically diversifies the holdings-- there is no "list of what companies the state can buy", it's basically every enterprise larger than a lemonade stand. I also love the idea of giving the state voting stock in private enterprise. It will be used politically to maximize accountability. Maybe American regulators have no say about the labour or environmental conditions in a factory you run in Burkina Faso, but give those regulators 30% of the voting shares of the company and let them try to yeet the Board of Directors, I bet that gets action! I also figured a lot of the trick to solving problems like retirement and homelessness was just to move more services outside of the dollar-denominated economy. Replacing "this apartment costs $1750 per month, and next year it will be $1900" with "we are obliged by law to accept your Class J-45 Housing Ration Voucher" means there's no way to claw additional assets from the poorest people who need the produc