How would you improve our economy system?

[Seattle]

I see many complaints but few suggestions as to how to improve or change our economic system. It would be nice if we could get through campaign reforms, get more "big money" out of politics, maybe try some term limits or age limits.

There are many reasons why doing all that in our political system is tough but change can be good. There seems to be a large (for this site) number of you who don't like the actual form of economic system that we have. I see many complaints but very few solutions as to how or what you would like to see changed.

Anyone?

 

[exchemist]

I see many complaints but few suggestions as to how to improve or change our economic system. It would be nice if we could get through campaign reforms, get more "big money" out of politics, maybe try some term limits or age limits.

There are many reasons why doing all that in our political system is tough but change can be good. There seems to be a large (for this site) number of you who don't like the actual form of economic system that we have. I see many complaints but very few solutions as to how or what you would like to see changed.

Anyone?

Is your question about the economy or about the US political system? Or both? From the way you express it, it seems to be as much about politics as about economics.

 

[Jeeves]

Politics and economics are inextricably connected, as a major part of a government's function is to regulate the economy.
At this point, it's impossible to change the monetary system, either locally or globally. So, pending a total collapse, only minor changes can be made to any part of the world's economic relations.

In each sovereign nation, the government has certain, limited powers over commerce: regulation, taxation, interest rate, the funding of government projects and the supply of money. It can allocate resources to different sectors under government auspices, issue or withdraw operating licenses, bestow or withhold subsidies and contracts, expropriate properties under eminent domain, initiate infrastructure, service and organizational projects. That gives a national government quite a wide scope for financial reform, FDR demonstrated this quite well. Of course, that was when The Market had made a godawful mess and the robber barons had their tails between their legs - a condition that never lasts long - and even so, a few of them managed to corrupt government projects for their own gain.

A few tentative steps toward meaningful reform:
- apply (to everyone) a graduated income tax that accurately reflects the prevailing economic disparity
- close venues for spiriting money out of the country
- subject churches to same rules as other enterprises: income, capital gains and property taxes
- cap all interest rates at 5% and waive all repayment obligations above that rate, retroactive 25 years.
- nationalize health insurance and lending for education
- nationalize all prisons and correctional facilities
- implement a universal basic income
- levy a hefty penalty on CO2 emissions and other pollutants
- offer a grants to promising innovations in clean technology and climate mitigation

 

[parmalee]

A few tentative steps toward meaningful reform:
- apply (to everyone) a graduated income tax that accurately reflects the prevailing economic disparity
- close venues for spiriting money out of the country
- subject churches to same rules as other enterprises: income, capital gains and property taxes
- cap all interest rates at 5% and waive all repayment obligations above that rate, retroactive 25 years.
- nationalize health insurance and lending for education
- nationalize all prisons and correctional facilities
- implement a universal basic income
- levy a hefty penalty on CO2 emissions and other pollutants
- offer a grants to promising innovations in clean technology and climate mitigation

It would be nice to see an analysis for such a proposal broken down by a highly competent and honest economist. The usual claim, from right-wingers who don't know crap, is that such a proposal would bankrupt a nation in 6 months/a year/a decade. But we seldom see an honest assessment for such from competent persons "in the know". (Not suggesting that you're not competent, of course, but I don't think you're and economist and neither am I.)

We also often see (from right-wingers) claims that higher taxation on income, property, capital gains, etc. "disincentivizes" innovation. That's ridiculous. Most people want enough money to buy security, comfort and "happiness" (heh), but does anyone really care if they only get 25 million dollars, when under another system they might see 50 million?

Moreover, IMHO (and in my personal experience), creative people and innovators don't really care all that much about making big money. They want to be fairly compensated, of course. This reflection bears out in the simple fact that there are virtually no right-wing writers, artists, musicians, or innovators generally who are, frankly, any good. There've been some decent fascist poets and philosophers, sure, but that's more to do with getting lost inside one's own head than anything.

 

[TheVat]

The only real change I can see would be from something deeper than tweaks to an economic system, i.e. a cultural change in how we humans view material goods (especially the cheap, fungible variety), "prosperity," adequate indoor living space, and our place in an ecosystem on a planet for which there is no Planet B. Such a change would involve a massive global conversation about the value of greed and having lots of shiny stuff - and what some alternatives might be that nurture what is best in humans and provide the actual basic needs of life. For me, it started many years ago with a move away from my car (apparently there are these devices called bicycles), towards a smaller house with less junk in it, towards groceries that contain a single ingredient and followed a simple trajectory from the ground to the plate, cutting the coaxial cable, and so on. It was interesting to discover, among other things, how children seem to thrive when soccer or basketball become activities you do down at the park rather than watch on a screen, or when you hand them a rake instead of a leaf blower, or when there is one television in a home which is rarely turned on, or when you show them how to pull a weed instead of dowsing it with glyphosate.

I know many view a less material life as something aberrant and flaky. But the real aberration (and why we are in our present ecological pickle) is the rampant consumerism and greed and physical disconnection from the world and our own bodies that capitalism has brought us. Capitalism loves the idea that all problems can be solved with technology (stripped of any cultural or spiritual considerations), because that is something that can be mass-produced and sold to everyone. As economic systems go, it is rather like the child with a hammer who runs around seeing everything as a nail. Some tech is good, but we need more of a cultural context in which to hold it at arm's length and eyeball it carefully before picking it up.

 

[Jeeves]

(Not suggesting that you're not competent, of course, but I don't think you're and economist and neither am I.)

The closest I get to being a competent economist is some familiarity with Canadian prosperity when we had some of those measures in effect, looking at some of the nations that report a high level of citizen satisfaction, and reading John Kenneth Galbraith.

I don't see how letting people off crippling debt would harm the nation. Though it would certainly make a lot of bankers cry into their Chivas and put cesspool scum like Payday Loans and the the guy who buys your grandmother's jewelry for peanuts out of business, it would also free up a huge amount of capital for small independent startups and put some homeless people under shelter. As for providing a single, universal basic income, think of all the welfare agencies consolidated into a single, streamlined, well organized operation. (with some concomitant loss of employmen) Then, add the savings from all the people who would not be arrested, tried and jailed for petty crimes of desperation, and illness caused by malnutrition, exposure and sanxiety.

Collecting all the government health schemes like Medicare, Medicaid, VAC and ACA under a single administration and expand it to all health coverage, charging a variable rate according to income, withheld by the employer. That would not only not only liberate funds from profit to be used in the actual health care system, but also cut a lot of redundant office jobs (I'm coming to that) and render a lot of office space available for new businesses to rent.
As for the student loans, making them available to qualified students at 5% flat rate, would not be a loss to the government - they would still get more money back, from a healthy labour force of grateful graduates.

Some bank employees might become redundant, along with the other unnecessary paper-pushers, but they could all get cheap loans to retrain in building trades, social work, health support, childcare, solar and wind generation, water purification, land reclamation, installing hydroponic farms in disused office towers, and all those startups looking to hire skilled workers. Some could even go on doing clerical work.

In case any of my proposed reforms did cost the government money, or subtract from the nation's general wealth (keeping in mind that the megarich often don't reinvest their profits on domestic improvements, but use them to buy destructive propaganda and politicians), it would be more than offset by the extra revenues. If it's still not enough revenu, forget about trying to control guns through legislation - just slap a 5000% sales tax on ammunition.

 

[Jeeves]

I

I know many view a less material life as something aberrant and flaky.

I also know that many people, of various ages, are embracing just such a change. From tiny houses to eco-villages, from backyard homesteads to communal gardens, people with no clout or wealth are having their own quiet cultural revolution.
The trouble is, it should have taken root last time around, in the sixties, and kept growing. By now, we'd have effected a fundamental shift of values. Now, it's pathetically little, far too late.

 

[parmalee]

The only real change I can see would be from something deeper than tweaks to an economic system, i.e. a cultural change in how we humans view material goods (especially the cheap, fungible variety), "prosperity," adequate indoor living space, and our place in an ecosystem on a planet for which there is no Planet B. Such a change would involve a massive global conversation about the value of greed and having lots of shiny stuff - and what some alternatives might be that nurture what is best in humans and provide the actual basic needs of life. For me, it started many years ago with a move away from my car (apparently there are these devices called bicycles), towards a smaller house with less junk in it, towards groceries that contain a single ingredient and followed a simple trajectory from the ground to the plate, cutting the coaxial cable, and so on. It was interesting to discover, among other things, how children seem to thrive when soccer or basketball become activities you do down at the park rather than watch on a screen, or when you hand them a rake instead of a leaf blower, or when there is one television in a home which is rarely turned on, or when you show them how to pull a weed instead of dowsing it with glyphosate.

I know many view a less material life as something aberrant and flaky. But the real aberration (and why we are in our present ecological pickle) is the rampant consumerism and greed and physical disconnection from the world and our own bodies that capitalism has brought us. Capitalism loves the idea that all problems can be solved with technology (stripped of any cultural or spiritual considerations), because that is something that can be mass-produced and sold to everyone. As economic systems go, it is rather like the child with a hammer who runs around seeing everything as a nail. Some tech is good, but we need more of a cultural context in which to hold it at arm's length and eyeball it carefully before picking it up.

One of the most depressing aspects of being American is that we've been conned into believing that what is good for you, or good for everyone really, is somehow less desirable. I consider myself very fortunate for having discovered this fairly early in life. I've been a vegan for nearly 40 years, and I didn't own a car until I was 36--and that vehicle, a VW Westfalia, also served as my home at that time. For many Gen X I think, music was sort of the gateway for much of it.

I've done a lot of bicycle touring, and I will invariably encounter people who just can't figure it out. Some even posit that I'm traveling by bike because I'm too poor to own a car. Granted, I always have traveled with my dog and a trailer with a fair bit of stuff, so I may appear odd, but I wouldn't think poverty would be the first thing that comes to mind. This typically happens in those smaller towns where only children ride bicycles. I'll point out that kids aren't riding bikes because they've got a job they need to get to, but rather because it's fun, but it doesn't seem to take.

A lot of tech solutions just seem like Band-Aids, simply deferring the real issues for a later date. And we seem to favor the more optimistic sorts and futurists over the Philip K Dick or JG Ballard types who rather uncannily anticipate a lot of the problems which will stem from these technological advances.

 

[parmalee]

I

I also know that many people, of various ages, are embracing just such a change. From tiny houses to eco-villages, from backyard homesteads to communal gardens, people with no clout or wealth are having their own quiet cultural revolution.
The trouble is, it should have taken root last time around, in the sixties, and kept growing. By now, we'd have effected a fundamental shift of values. Now, it's pathetically little, far too late.

There are a number of studies on subcultures that tend to endure--that is, those which people embrace at some stage in life, usually adolescence, and tend to adhere to for much of their life. Interestingly, those relating to veganism and animal rights are some of the most enduring. Music is typically, though by no means always or the only, point of origin for many such subcultures.

Changing people's behaviors and values, especially in large numbers to such a degree that it can be described as a cultural shift, is obviously a tremendously difficult feat. But I do find it interesting that, from what I've read at least, people who embraced veganism/animal rights at some point in the 80s/90s/00s are more apt to stick with it than those who've done such in more recent years, when there's an abundance of information (from recipe blogs to info on factory farming and industrial agriculture), restaurants, (prepared) foods in markets, etc. Not sure where exactly to go with that, but I feel that, I don't know, someone somewhere may find that instructive and figure out something to with it.

 

[Jeeves]

But I do find it interesting that, from what I've read at least, people who embraced veganism/animal rights at some point in the 80s/90s/00s are more apt to stick with it than those who've done such in more recent years,

I'm not sure there is a fair way to assess that. We stopped eating meat in 1995 and never looked back. But many others who tried dietary changes then either reverted very quickly or never committed, because they found it inconvenient. Maybe the present crop of backsliders are just lasting longer because it's not hard.

 

[billvon]

Some thoughts in no particular order:

Increase the slope of our income tax i.e. make it more progressive while keeping total income the same. This will get more money into the economy.

Tax churches.

Stop forgiving loans and instead offer conversion to zero interest loans.

 

[Jeeves]

erased accidental duplicate

 

[Jeeves]

Tax churches.

Definitely top of the agenda. Some of these con artists are salting away $billions with total impunity.
They should get the same exemptions as any other organization; whatever charitable work they do would still be tax free - just the real estate and income generating businesses, luxury planes and dividends.

Oh - and stop all contributions to political campaigns. No advertising of any kind. Stage personal appearances at government venues (municipal, state and federal) which includes schools. Have time-limited speeches by every candidate, interviews and prearranged moderated debates aired on public broadcast networks. Announce them on the regular news broadcasts of the commercial stations.

 

[parmalee]

I'm not sure there is a fair way to assess that. We stopped eating meat in 1995 and never looked back. But many others who tried dietary changes then either reverted very quickly or never committed, because they found it inconvenient. Maybe the present crop of backsliders are just lasting longer because it's not hard.

But it makes sense that having a broader cultural component might contribute to longevity. As to how cultural attitudes might compare to big money and powerful lobbyists with respect to being obstacles to change is hard to say, but they're certainly not insignificant.

For instance, a lot of Americans are opposed to universal healthcare on principle. How do you "fix" that? And I'll argue against myself here:

does anyone really care if they only get 25 million dollars, when under another system they might see 50 million?

Yeah, a lot of people actually do seem to care about that. I don't get it. I mean, intellectually I get the mythos that we are indoctrinated with since kindergarten, but I don't really get it.

 

[Jeeves]

Yeah, a lot of people actually do seem to care about that. I don't get it.

Michael Moore asked in Capitalism, A Love Story: "Isn't it enough to be a half billionaire?" and the answer was a resounding No! Somebody else is richer! Capitalism has no concept of enough; it only comprehends more.

I didn't get it, either, until somebody in the thrift store asked me "Another poetry book? How many do you need?"
In truth: All of them. I'll never have the time or inclination to read all the poems, I just like to have them around me. My next door neighbour used to collect Santa dolls; her house was teeming with them. I thought 'creepy', but then she would think my books 'weird'. We humans are acquisitive animals; we're like caddisflies, gathering things about our fragile selves to feel secure. Only the things never make us secure enough. (more....)

 

[Seattle]

Capitalism isn't about "more is never enough". It's about market equilibrium setting price and production rather than central planning.

People who have billions, in general, are productive people and they don't suddenly stay home and count money once they have a certain amount.

Mark Cuban, for example, started and sold several companies. Later he bought the Dallas Mavericks. He sold that so that he would have the funds to get involved in a possible casino in Dallas based around the Mavs. This is not a certainty but that seems to be the case. He is also involved in a discount prescription drug business, much like Amazon is trying.

It's not a matter of how much money is enough. It's what new businesses can you get involved in if you have more money.

 

[Jeeves]

Capitalism isn't about "more is never enough".

Then why don't the megarich Just . Stop. Eating Up. the World ?

People who have billions, in general, are productive people

Ah, wonderful!

Later he bought the Dallas Mavericks.

Sounds good. What does that company produce?

He sold that so that he would have the funds to get involved in a possible casino in Dallas

Even better. Con people into gambling away whatever they've earned by producing stuff.
Trump would approve.

 

[Seattle]

Then why don't the megarich Just . Stop. Eating Up. the World ?


Ah, wonderful!

Sounds good. What does that company produce?

Even better. Con people into gambling away whatever they've earned by producing stuff.
Trump would approve.

I get it, you're grumpy.

Is the world getting "eaten up"?

Aren't you just finding things to worry about that don't really have that much to do with you?

You don't have to approve of everything. I don't approve of everything either. I do try to deal with reality and I do try to understand how things work if I'm going to be opinionated about that subject.

I also have nothing to do with Trump so there is no need to keep bringing him up if we are talking about economics.

There are different viewpoints in this world. I accept that other viewpoints are valid. Many here don't seem to feel that way.

 

[Jeeves]

Is the world getting "eaten up"?

Very, very fast.

Aren't you just finding things to worry about that don't really have that much to do with you?

Yes. I'll be dead and gone soon, but many, many innocent humans and other species are suffering now and will continue to suffer until none are left.

I do try to deal with reality

The little slice of it you acknowledge, yes.

There are different viewpoints in this world.

True. Some are wrong and destructive; some are not.

 

[billvon]

Capitalism isn't about "more is never enough". It's about market equilibrium setting price and production rather than central planning.

It's about both, of course.

If the CEO of a company has an opportunity to get more (money, profit, market share, competitive advantage) he takes it, because if he doesn't, he gets voted out by shareholders who want more. That's how capitalism works. Everyone wants more.

In the words of the mythical Gordon Gecko: Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.