I think the bigger part of the economy should be planned. Exception could possibly be small businesses. We do not need to nationalise every plumbing company, but there should at least be one.
UBI - Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
I would make the (maybe controversial) point that we do already have in many respects "planed" economies. Just not your typical soviet-style planned economies with their 5 year plans run by the government. But it is planned and run by certain dogmas which are ideologies that are treated like natural laws. One of them is >supply & demand< and the other one is >perpetual growth<, both often named as the basis of all the wealth and achievements which have been created.
Both of those are principles that you will see very often named when it comes to our economic models. And this is true for most countries out there, certainly in developed countries. But if that is not in some sort a planed economy then I don't know what.
Supply and demand seems only to occur when it is in favour of corporations - see the prices of masks. But it never seems to applied to them when it is at their disadvantage - see labour force. Institutions private or government owned have an incredibly difficult time of getting the required workforce to do their jobs, there is a very serious shortage here. Do we see this rise in the wages of caregivers, teachers, educators and many other social professions though? There is obviously a very high demand, now more than ever if we look at the situation in hospitals. The simple "rule" of the market, by supply and demand, would now tell us, that prices should go up till they meet the demand. But that's not what we're actually seeing. And I say this is due to the fact that economies are not focused around supply and demand as much as they are about profit. There is no profit in treating people and paying nurses high wages if the hospital has to serve interests of share holders for example - or an economy driven by it. Demand for good nurses can be as high as it wants, they will not see a rise in their wage as long as the intention is to make the hospital as profitable as possible. Even if you would need a thousand times more nurses than now they would not see their wages go up by a thousand time. Probably not even doubled.
Which brings me to the next point. Economic growth is at the heart of almost every (larger) corporation these days, it's part of their business plans, their strategies. If some division is not growing enough something must be wrong. Even if they make a profit. It is not enough to generate just a good winning, it has also to grow each year to meet certain objectives and targets. A certain amount of cars have to be produced and sold a certain number of services offered and everything is calculated in their business plans. If someone is ordering that their business has to grow by let us say 4% each year, no matter how, then how is this not a sort of "planned" target? The effects of this kind of growth and it's devastation can be seen on all sorts of sectors, from health care to education and the housing market.
And in all of that we have not even talked about the overproduction in many areas and the incredible amount of bail outs we've seen over the last few decades which go against pretty everything that's preached in a "free and liberal" market economy where business, at least to my understanding, are meant to actually go out of business if they make the wrong choices hell in a free market they should go down even if they made all the right choices but didn't manage to get trough the crisis as it is the 'invisible hand' of the market guiding everything. And yet, we see this often only with smaller business and workers where as large corporations and banks receive bail outs.
If people call our current economies free markets then I think they are deluding them them self. Besides on top of it the societies we have today are defined by abundance. At least when it comes to some of the most basic needs like food and water. The production of those goods far outweighs the actual needs. But not everyone gets access to it in the same way (nationwide and world wide) because we long abandoned the idea of supply and demand for another principle. Financial power.
In the system that we currently have it is simply more profitable to throw food away and to keep apartments empty than to give it to someone for free.
Both of those are principles that you will see very often named when it comes to our economic models. And this is true for most countries out there, certainly in developed countries. But if that is not in some sort a planed economy then I don't know what.
Supply and demand seems only to occur when it is in favour of corporations - see the prices of masks. But it never seems to applied to them when it is at their disadvantage - see labour force. Institutions private or government owned have an incredibly difficult time of getting the required workforce to do their jobs, there is a very serious shortage here. Do we see this rise in the wages of caregivers, teachers, educators and many other social professions though? There is obviously a very high demand, now more than ever if we look at the situation in hospitals. The simple "rule" of the market, by supply and demand, would now tell us, that prices should go up till they meet the demand. But that's not what we're actually seeing. And I say this is due to the fact that economies are not focused around supply and demand as much as they are about profit. There is no profit in treating people and paying nurses high wages if the hospital has to serve interests of share holders for example - or an economy driven by it. Demand for good nurses can be as high as it wants, they will not see a rise in their wage as long as the intention is to make the hospital as profitable as possible. Even if you would need a thousand times more nurses than now they would not see their wages go up by a thousand time. Probably not even doubled.
Which brings me to the next point. Economic growth is at the heart of almost every (larger) corporation these days, it's part of their business plans, their strategies. If some division is not growing enough something must be wrong. Even if they make a profit. It is not enough to generate just a good winning, it has also to grow each year to meet certain objectives and targets. A certain amount of cars have to be produced and sold a certain number of services offered and everything is calculated in their business plans. If someone is ordering that their business has to grow by let us say 4% each year, no matter how, then how is this not a sort of "planned" target? The effects of this kind of growth and it's devastation can be seen on all sorts of sectors, from health care to education and the housing market.
And in all of that we have not even talked about the overproduction in many areas and the incredible amount of bail outs we've seen over the last few decades which go against pretty everything that's preached in a "free and liberal" market economy where business, at least to my understanding, are meant to actually go out of business if they make the wrong choices hell in a free market they should go down even if they made all the right choices but didn't manage to get trough the crisis as it is the 'invisible hand' of the market guiding everything. And yet, we see this often only with smaller business and workers where as large corporations and banks receive bail outs.
If people call our current economies free markets then I think they are deluding them them self. Besides on top of it the societies we have today are defined by abundance. At least when it comes to some of the most basic needs like food and water. The production of those goods far outweighs the actual needs. But not everyone gets access to it in the same way (nationwide and world wide) because we long abandoned the idea of supply and demand for another principle. Financial power.
In the system that we currently have it is simply more profitable to throw food away and to keep apartments empty than to give it to someone for free.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
...and why not, if you dug the pond on your own land, maintain it, and stocked the fish?
Yes but you do it one time to often and the one you're starving to death will declare the pond the property of the people and they will build a small area with a fence around it for you, calling it gulag.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I like how Crni's best argument for altruism is "because we lazy leeches will kill you if you don't let us fish in the pond you made instead of making a pond ourselves".
A tourist is on vacation near the sea and walks along a pier where he sees a small fishing boat docking. He watches the fisherman unload a small net of fish. He asks the fisherman "How does it take you to catch this many fish?" The fisherman answers, "Not long." The tourist asks, "Will you go out again today?" -"No", answers the fisherman. "I have enough for me and my family. The rest of the day I sit in the sun and spend time with my family." The tourist is confused. "But if you go out again and catch more, you can sell more fish at the market. Save enough money and you can buy a bigger boat, catch even more fish, hire helpers to increase your business, have a whole fleet of fishing boats working for you." The tourist is now excited about all the business possibilties in the future. "And then... You can retire, sit in the sun, and enjoy your life." The fisherman raises his eyebrows. "So, what I do now?" The tourist smiles. "Yes, but you'll pay taxes in the meantime and feed more people, and if you don't do that we'll cut off your johnson."
A tourist is on vacation near the sea and walks along a pier where he sees a small fishing boat docking. He watches the fisherman unload a small net of fish. He asks the fisherman "How does it take you to catch this many fish?" The fisherman answers, "Not long." The tourist asks, "Will you go out again today?" -"No", answers the fisherman. "I have enough for me and my family. The rest of the day I sit in the sun and spend time with my family." The tourist is confused. "But if you go out again and catch more, you can sell more fish at the market. Save enough money and you can buy a bigger boat, catch even more fish, hire helpers to increase your business, have a whole fleet of fishing boats working for you." The tourist is now excited about all the business possibilties in the future. "And then... You can retire, sit in the sun, and enjoy your life." The fisherman raises his eyebrows. "So, what I do now?" The tourist smiles. "Yes, but you'll pay taxes in the meantime and feed more people, and if you don't do that we'll cut off your johnson."
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
David R. Kamerschen said:
Ok mr. smarty pants then how do you think growing inequality is going to play out in a society?
Doesn't matter what I think. I'm just tired of the revenge fantasies of social cucks on one side and pseudo-Rorschachs on the other.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
What about total Rorschach?
He knows how to handle income inequality. With his fist.
He knows how to handle income inequality. With his fist.
I will try to be rational here.
I would say crucial infrastructure - of which some is already run by the government in Germany.
But on top of my head I would say Transport (train) and electricity should be nationalised again.
And obviously Health Care too.
Those should be on top of my head the choice. Most of them have been owned by the government here in Germany at some point anyway (transport and electricity).
Maybe, but that could be seen as to extreme large real estate companies should be either nationalised or transferred in to cooperatives. However I see no other way to solve the housing crisis in Germany right now. Particularly as some say we could be looking at more than 1 million homeless people in the next few years due to growing rents - additionally to the one we already have. It is a very drastic measure - well not in my eyes but eh - but we are also in a very dire situation and our constitution gives it as an option.
Societies can and have fallen apart in the past due to growing inequality. It is one of the reasons why we have so many social democracies in the first place to prevent this from happening and have some sort of distribution taking place. But we've seen a massive erosion of this over the last few decades to the disadvantage of the middle class and the poor and if things move in the wrong direction we might see trough the recession which will inevitably follow this virus a massive tightening of inequality on a global and national level. And there is no saying what might happen if we face another virus or even the same virus in 1 or 2 years - see Spanish Flu.
So yeah this is something that I find concerning.
Last edited:
I'd agree with that. The german train system is a great example of the worst combination of state monopoly and running it like a private company for profit. Shouldn't have done that, either full privatisation with competition, or fully nationalised. We have private train service providers that do great jobs, shows that it can work.
Also, health care and electricity/water/gas. Although I don't really see how it would improve the situation in a significant way, since there's not too much of a problem at the moment with electricity and water.
Housing is a split thing, I guess. There's no real point in nationalising existing inventory since it wouldn't alleviate the problem (unless you want to kick out everyone in apartments you consider too big or luxurious and turn them into recompressed new housing units for lower incomes), but building new housing by the government would be good, because with all the regulations in place it's just not profitable for private companies to build new buildings in some areas.
Hmm.
I am not entirely against the private sector or saying that it can't be done. What I really have a problem with is privatising institutions which have been run by the government before. There are only very few examples where the privatisation of them actually ended up being a benefit to the people. Take Paris for example where they privatised their water supply. It ended up being so bad for the people because the prices spiralled upwards while the quality dropped, that Paris bought it back at an increased price. Another serious issue is also the undemocratization. Infrastructure which was created and maintained by the money of tax payers being sold and opened to private investors and owners. That never really sits right with me. Particularly if they also manage to avoid taxes. Oh I also forgot that pensions should always be nationalized.
The thing is if you have a private company coming in and offering a solution or certain service which was not present before, that can be really awesome and very successful if there is a sort of competition. I have nothing against that I am not anti business. But taking formerly public institutions and privatising them? Opening up areas to a profit oriented market often leads to very serious issues for the population. Suddenly it is not about offering a service to the citizens anymore, but about who can afford it. Not to mention that it completely changes the motivation. One really fucked up example for that is the American prison system after some of the parts have been privatised and now some prisons have to meet "quotas". Think about it a system that makes profit when the incarceration rates go up ... what's the worst the could happen right?
I understand that I am not an complete moron nationalizing Vonovia would not create one single new apartment. But it would take pressure of those that live in those. Vonovia is really one of the predatory landlord types of companies out there. There have to be several solutions here because we're looking at a very complex issue which has been neglected for decades.
In my opinion there have to be short term solutions (stabilisation) and mid/long term solutions. Nationalisation is a short term solution to help those that have a their apartment but they don't get pushed out by extreme rents. This takes off some pressure from the housing market.
The next step would have to be an increase of public housing and the last and probably most difficult, getting bad investors and predatory landlords out. Or at the very least keeping them in check.
I mean the reality right now is that you have investors from all over the world with a large amount of money pouring into the housing market an they all expect returns. If we could for example at the very least make sure that outside investors are well, kept outside and don't use housing here in Germany to just increase their wealth because the interest rates are so high, we would have already achieved a lot. I mean you have cases where some buy complete blocks full with apartments and leave them empty for almost a year to increase the rents and thus gain a large profit. In some cases between 10 and 20%. If you're someone with a ton of cash, that's a crazy return of investment. Some managed to actually get rates from 50% with buying property and not using it for several years. But since people need living space well ... for a living, it's not like they have a choice to say, no to the growing rents.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Take a long look at all of those services you people would classify as "Essential" during this crisis. Consider that all of those services and industries to be completely automated. Therefore, you have the bedrock to as much of a capitalist society you want if you know where to place your foundation.
CEO Big Man Tyrone 666
Cancerlinks
CEO Big Man Tyrone 666
Cancerlinks
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
"Who Cares? Let 'Em Get Wiped Out": Stunning CNBC Anchor, Venture Capitalist Says Let Hedge Funds Fail and Save Main Street
"A hedge fund that serves a bunch of billionaire family offices? Who cares? They don't get to summer in the Hamptons? Who cares!"
After Wapner suggested it would be "immoral" to let any company get wiped out in the economic crisis, Palihapitiya responded that "on Main Street today, people are getting wiped out."
"And right now, rich CEOs are not, boards that had horrible governance are not, hedge funds are not. People are," said Palihapitiya. "Six million people just this week alone basically saying, 'Holy mackerel, I don't know how I'm going to make my own expenses for the next few weeks, days, months. So it's happening today to individual Americans. And what we've done is disproportionately prop up and protect poor performing CEOs, companies, and boards. And you have to wash these people out."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...vXsw8Ct-QAFDraQFdrXW2kWtsfFzyLCUC28vmJZLBt64I
"A hedge fund that serves a bunch of billionaire family offices? Who cares? They don't get to summer in the Hamptons? Who cares!"
After Wapner suggested it would be "immoral" to let any company get wiped out in the economic crisis, Palihapitiya responded that "on Main Street today, people are getting wiped out."
"And right now, rich CEOs are not, boards that had horrible governance are not, hedge funds are not. People are," said Palihapitiya. "Six million people just this week alone basically saying, 'Holy mackerel, I don't know how I'm going to make my own expenses for the next few weeks, days, months. So it's happening today to individual Americans. And what we've done is disproportionately prop up and protect poor performing CEOs, companies, and boards. And you have to wash these people out."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...vXsw8Ct-QAFDraQFdrXW2kWtsfFzyLCUC28vmJZLBt64I
@Hassknecht if you're bored or simply feel curious you might want to take a look at this. Can't say how feasible anything of it is, but I've been asking around some of Yangs supporters and this is what they shared with me on the question of finances.
Background
Our goal here is to provide a rigorous, detailed, peer-reviewed and transparent cost analysis of Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend (FD). When we first heard the 2020 presidential candidate propose his form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) we were excited, inspired and skeptical all at the same time. We understood the tremendous boon for people and businesses alike but, much like you, wondered how our country can pay for it.
We set out to explore the cost viability of the FD, watching Yang policy interviews, combing through yang2020.com official proposals, studying independent reports and data, and soliciting public review of our analysis. As of this writing, we estimate that over 80% of FD is paid for through itself and in combination with other Yang proposals. While we cannot currently conclude that the FD plan is deficit neutral, our research has led us to believe that Yang and his team have and continue to rigorously seek fiscally responsible solutions for our 21st century challenges.
https://freedom-dividend.com/?fbclid=IwAR1AcaVB42uil2gplZE4PgT5hIV57rnlUq61bQ0i-OshczPCa8Z-UCOw3Wk
https://trello-attachments.s3.amazo...JjGbQfGi41eBnzeEufyYiLkDxGl39ejtckoF7JiiE3LNI
https://trello.com/b/lFrwh5Kf/resource-database-for-the-yanggang
Background
Our goal here is to provide a rigorous, detailed, peer-reviewed and transparent cost analysis of Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend (FD). When we first heard the 2020 presidential candidate propose his form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) we were excited, inspired and skeptical all at the same time. We understood the tremendous boon for people and businesses alike but, much like you, wondered how our country can pay for it.
We set out to explore the cost viability of the FD, watching Yang policy interviews, combing through yang2020.com official proposals, studying independent reports and data, and soliciting public review of our analysis. As of this writing, we estimate that over 80% of FD is paid for through itself and in combination with other Yang proposals. While we cannot currently conclude that the FD plan is deficit neutral, our research has led us to believe that Yang and his team have and continue to rigorously seek fiscally responsible solutions for our 21st century challenges.
https://freedom-dividend.com/?fbclid=IwAR1AcaVB42uil2gplZE4PgT5hIV57rnlUq61bQ0i-OshczPCa8Z-UCOw3Wk
https://trello-attachments.s3.amazo...JjGbQfGi41eBnzeEufyYiLkDxGl39ejtckoF7JiiE3LNI
https://trello.com/b/lFrwh5Kf/resource-database-for-the-yanggang
Well, they're also using the Widerquist "net cost" terminology of "net cost is what we still don't have accounted for after raising the federal revenue by 1.6 trillion dollars per year".
Basically, they still don't know how to pay for it, but at least they're not using up the entire federal budget this time.
Basically, they're ramping up VAT, counting increased tax revenue from boosted income (cold progression, anyone?), and just generally fire up taxes so federal revenue gets increased by 1.6 trillion, they save a few hundred billion, and hope that the UBI increases tax revenue by economic growth far enough that they're only with about 320 billion dollars in the negative in the end.
It's what I've been saying all along. They'll need to ramp up the federal budget by any means possible. No amount of euphemism can change that, and no amount of screeching about "THE MONEY IS THERE" will ever make it actually true. So 320 billion dollars to go. Money printer go brrr?
Basically, they still don't know how to pay for it, but at least they're not using up the entire federal budget this time.
Basically, they're ramping up VAT, counting increased tax revenue from boosted income (cold progression, anyone?), and just generally fire up taxes so federal revenue gets increased by 1.6 trillion, they save a few hundred billion, and hope that the UBI increases tax revenue by economic growth far enough that they're only with about 320 billion dollars in the negative in the end.
It's what I've been saying all along. They'll need to ramp up the federal budget by any means possible. No amount of euphemism can change that, and no amount of screeching about "THE MONEY IS THERE" will ever make it actually true. So 320 billion dollars to go. Money printer go brrr?
Well, can't be worse than 40 years of trickle down economy.
The good thing about this plan is that all the glorious increased economic growth that's touted to make everyone better is already in the plan to even for the UBI, so one doesn't even have to dismantle that claim to get to a more realistic cost.
It's an additional 320 billion per year in debt for people to have a bit more money in their pockets that will help them cover the increased costs for everything thanks to the increased VAT. It'll help, but I kinda doubt that the effect will be really too different from trickle down economics.
It's an additional 320 billion per year in debt for people to have a bit more money in their pockets that will help them cover the increased costs for everything thanks to the increased VAT. It'll help, but I kinda doubt that the effect will be really too different from trickle down economics.