3 ms·
And keep in mind that The Economist is traditionally neoliberal. Yet they stay true to economics principles even when they are more lefty and collectively enfo
by EGreg 1y ago
And keep in mind that The Economist is traditionally neoliberal.
Yet they stay true to economics principles even when they are more lefty and collectively enforced :)
Now imagine what else Pigovian Taxes can do to help solve collective action problems, if we had a UBI and local city currencies:
https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basic-income-in-communities/1069 https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...
To quote: Finally, as taxes and fees are introduced in the local economy, the community can start to issue a Universal Basic Income in its own currency, without causing inflation.
Various taxes can be organically introduced, including sales taxes, land taxes 1, and pigovian taxes 3 on things like pollution, fossil fuels, meat or cigarettes. By redistributing taxed money equally to everyone, this can align public incentives with taxing these negative externalities, and avoid them falling disproportionately on the working class, as happened with the yellow vest protests in France.
As demand for the local currency (and thus local real estate and services) grows, so does the town’s ability to tax various transactions. The town’s citizens could be given the ability to democratically vote on the level of taxes, and thus the level of UBI, they want to receive.
Thus the town can have both sound money and true democratic control of its fiscal and monetary policies, all the while becoming more self-sufficient and stronger. Any town will be able to introduce a local UBI to end food insecurity, improve health outcomes, reduce dependence on means-tested welfare programs, and so on.
PS: Why all the downvotes? Why always silent with no reason?
- PaulHoule 1y agoThe Economist was founded in 1843 to oppose the Corn Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws so there is nothing "neo" about their "liberal".
- krustyburger 1y agoI’m not sure neoliberal and “lefty” are anywhere near synonyms either.
- PaulHoule 1y agoThey aren't. But I find something amusing that The Economist (which I subscribe to) is frequently considered left-leaning https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist whereas I see it what the center-right would be if we had a healthy media/political environment.
- kristjansson 1y agoImpugns the source(s) trying to place them on the left-right axis more than anything.
- tekla 1y agoThey are classical liberal, which is impossible to place in the current US Left-Right spectrum because politics have become even dumber than previously thought possible
- PaulHoule 1y ago… politics aren’t just dumb in the US. The Economist is politically homeless these days and has little faith in Labor, Tories or Lib Dems.
- billfor 1y agoCount how many times they use hard-left vs hard-right, or how many times they use hard-right vs any other kind of right.
- turnsout 1y agoIt's confusing, but "liberal" and "neoliberal" are in fact antonyms.
- PaulHoule 1y agoNot really. Ever seen a "liberal" liberate or a "conservative" conserve? The term got its current usage when FDR came in because at that time it was a matter of "burn it all down" (real socialism) vs "fix the private property system around the margins". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
- EGreg 1y agoFair enough from a pedantic point of view, but I was using the term in this sense, as it is the most recognizable modern term to describe serious economic positions of this kind: Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free markets, reduced government intervention, and individual liberty. It's often associated with policies like deregulation, privatization, and free trade. Proponents believe these measures foster economic growth, efficiency, and individual prosperity. However, critics argue that neoliberal policies can lead to increased inequality, social instability, and exploitation And my point was here they were applauding policies involving clear government intervention.
- tekla 1y ago> they were applauding policies involving clear government intervention Yes the Economist will do that, because they believe in classical liberal markets
- kfajdsl 1y ago(neo)liberal != libertarian. The government has a clear role for internalizing externalities, which makes markets more efficient. Or, in this case, using price signals to allocate scarce resources when it was just a free-for-all before.
- jf22 1y agoDoesn't it matter more about who they are today rather than who they were 180 years ago?
- jowea 1y agoCharging for an scarce resource instead of letting the tragedy of the commons play out does sound like something obvious to come out of a neoliberal economist yes.
- EGreg 1y agoWhat is The Economist’s position on carbon taxes? Update: wow you’re right: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/net-zero-and-energy/now-is-the-time-to-impose-carbon-taxes-across-the-global-economy-ian-parry https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/net-zero-and-ene...
- melling 1y agoEven Bjorn Lomborg who is against most climate change policies is for a carbon tax. https://lomborg.com/news/how-avoid-political-pitfalls-carbon-taxes https://lomborg.com/news/how-avoid-political-pitfalls-carbon...
- montjoy 1y agoThat’s an op-ed btw. > The views expressed in the blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Economist Impact or the sponsor. So not necessarily reflective of The Economist’s position.
- jcranmer 1y agoThe Economist has long been pretty outspoken over their preference for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade (see any article they write about carbon emissions).
- vkou 1y agoCarbon taxes have always been a conservative/neo-liberal idea. Modern 'conservatives' abandoning them tells you a lot about how far their politics have shifted over the past decade.
- wat10000 1y ago
- EA-3167 1y agoWhile I support congestion pricing, I will say that The Economist is most notable these days a negative oracle: whatever it predicts, the opposite will happen.
- EGreg 1y agoThe Jim Cramer of macroeconomics? :)
- tekla 1y agoSuch as?
- ch4s3 1y agoThey were spot on about post covid stimulus fueling inflation.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoExamples? Counter-example: the Economist predicted the 2007 sub-prime crisis and housing price crash.
- ahepp 1y agoCongestion pricing seems like a pretty liberal policy to me. Using supply and demand to set a price. Sure, you could crank the Friedman dial to 11 by say, privatizing the roads and letting the operators set the price based on competition. But the policy is liberal at its core. A “lefty, collectively enforced” policy would be something like a quota or permit system. A key difference being that anyone who wants to drive on the road can do so as long as they pay. It isn’t “everyone with odd license plate numbers can drive today, evens can drive tomorrow” but rather “you can drive today if it’s worth $9 to you”.
- varispeed 1y agoIt is classist. If it was liberal, then it would be based on % of someone's wealth (and using progressive scale). These policies are aimed at getting unwashed pleb off the roads so the rich can show off their cars in peace.
- queenkjuul 1y agoAll the poor people on the buses were never gonna drive and now have faster more reliable service
- cute_boi 1y agohow are they going to have more reliable service?
- TulliusCicero 1y agoThey mean that buses are now faster/more reliable.
- vkou 1y agoBuses spend less time stuck in traffic.
- rsynnott 1y agoBuses work better when there's less traffic.