11–20 of 34 posts
It's the only reasonable way to avoid the main flaws of our economy/society. Billionaires would be way worse off, as they won't freely reap the fruit of the labor of the workers that power their ideas, and the workers will be way better off, as their productivity is no longer decoupled with their pay.
Isn't VAT generally a regressive tax so does the exact opposite of what the author thinks it does? The rich spend less versus their income than other demographics. I guess the UBI is to offset that but that just doesn't seem like a stable system.
We're not going to get economic change until the people revolt. This doesn't need to be a revolt with guns and bombs, it could just be a refusal to pay taxes and to purchase things. The US has shown that it's extremely vulnerable to economic warfare given how little slack there is in the system for absorbing shocks, so it's the perfect avenue for asymmetric warfare.
Except this change isn't anti growth and is a lot simpler to fix than climate change. It can be bi-partisan, if framed right, we have to at least try.
Probably what happened is America was in an increasing returns to scale part of its production function. Now it's in the diminishing returns to scale portion. If I had to guess why, it would be due to growth boundaries of cities and lack of new cities. There's no new Manhattans. Instead Manhattan has just gotten more and more expensive to live in.
Anyway, if F(Population) is the production function, then wages should be F'(Population) and total wages should be Population.F'(Population).
F(Population)-Population.F'(Population) is total production minus total wages and is known as economic rent.
The right thing to do would be to tax economic rent. Use a tax on land value and natural resources to fund UBI.
I'd say a better alternative to taxes and handouts is to normalise and incentivise to give a stake in the company/business to every worker. It's the only reasonable way to avoid the main flaws of our economy/society. Billionaires would be way worse off, as they won't freely reap the fruit of the labor of the workers that power their ideas, and the workers will be way better off, as their productivity is no longer dec…
In fact if you look at the economics of this policy over the long term it leaks capital through rents, so it doesn't actually work forever.
A sovereign wealth fund can solve this (essentially an expansion of the "buffer" I wrote about). That functions as almost exactly what you want, giving a stake in every company to every worker (except broader, to every citizen).
If you buy the framing that labor is currently a distortion, you wouldn't want to only give stakes in companies to workers of those companies, if you do that the distortion will continue.
Labor is not a market distortion and average wages not following average productivity is not evidence that it is. In a competitive market, wages should follow marginal productivity. Probably what happened is America was in an increasing returns to scale part of its production function. Now it's in the diminishing returns to scale portion. If I had to guess why, it would be due to growth boundaries of cities and lack…
But do you agree with the theoretical framing? People not being able to not work forces them to find something. It's like an iron ore deposit being forced to be mined rather than being mined when it's needed?
I'd say a better alternative to taxes and handouts is to normalise and incentivise to give a stake in the company/business to every worker. It's the only reasonable way to avoid the main flaws of our economy/society. Billionaires would be way worse off, as they won't freely reap the fruit of the labor of the workers that power their ideas, and the workers will be way better off, as their productivity is no longer dec…
Isn't VAT generally a regressive tax so does the exact opposite of what the author thinks it does? The rich spend less versus their income than other demographics. I guess the UBI is to offset that but that just doesn't seem like a stable system.
The author addresses this exact concern.
Labor is not a market distortion and average wages not following average productivity is not evidence that it is. In a competitive market, wages should follow marginal productivity. Probably what happened is America was in an increasing returns to scale part of its production function. Now it's in the diminishing returns to scale portion. If I had to guess why, it would be due to growth boundaries of cities and lack…
That's true, I think the real problem is a liiiiittle more nuanced than just the great stagnation. But that's the graph people know. The issue can be read out in more detail from other graphs too, I'm working on an updated piece. I mention georgism at the end of the piece as well. But do you agree with the theoretical framing? People not being able to not work forces them to find something. It's like an iron ore depo…