Tackling Inequality Through the Social Ownership of Capital

[HomerThompson]

LOL. That was my thought as well.

I was ready for the detailed analysis we've all come to know and love.

 

[Jack V Savage]

LOL. That was my thought as well.

I was ready for the detailed analysis we've all come to know and love.

Maybe later.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Maybe later.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Social impact bonds would be better suited for the American system

 

[Islam Imamate]

Doesn't Norway or some European country have a similar fund that relies on oil? I can't remember which one but it is a similar example. I tend to think there is a good argument for it when thinking about natural resources. This does cause a rift though between the idea of a ubi but also generating support for an industry like oil if they went that route. I think the better ideas with energy is to find the best ways for it to progress and lower costs. That way, the market can still move on and off of things that don't work and aren't tied to relying on certain revenue.

Norway does and its mentioned in the paper

Norway’s central government currently manages three main asset pools. There is the Government Pension Fund Norway (gpf-Norway), a stock and bond portfolio that is invested in Norwegian and other Nordic companies;25 the Government Pension Fund Global (gpf-Global), a stock, bond, and real estate portfolio invested exclusively outside of Norway;26 and the state-owned enterprises (soes), a set of 74 domestic companies that are directly owned by 12 government ministries.27

These holdings generate a considerable amount of income. Over the last 10 years, the conservatively-invested gpf-Global generated an average annual return of 5.9 percent.34 Over the same period, gpf-Norway had an 8.3 percent average return.35 In 2017, gpf-Global generated a return 1,028 billion kroner while gpf-Norway had a return of 26 billion kroner.36 In 2016, the soe portfolio produced a 33 billion kroner dividend for the state.37 Adding the 2016 soe figure to the 2017 figures for gpf-Norway and gpf-Global gives you a total return of 1,087 billion kroner or $133 billion.38

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/#endnotes

Had that money been paid out as a dividend to all 5.2 million Norwegians, it would have provided each with $25,500, or $102,000 for every family of four.

 

[Gandhi]

Lol at the brush off from @Jack V Savage, he sold me on the idea and is a big proponent of some form of it.

I am a big fan if the idea as well.

Comments on videos, not great

1) "you don't have to work for it." That's BS, in many cases people worked and deferred consumption in exchange for this future income. Capital is not a problem, it's the driving engine of innovation. That suited guy laying on his butt getting free cash is at least somewhat horsehit.

2) what the video fails to address well is that wealth can often be inherited and wealth confers the ability to extract more of the economic surplus that society creates that could arguable go to all sides. This can be seen in finance and executive pay. Capital allows people to rig the system and get more, so to speak.

3) wealth compounds inequality and all of the recent gains in income inequality have accrued to capital. Video is correct. The "why" inequality matters from a democracy and social utility stand point is also important and needs to be addressed.

4) second video really fails to sell NSWF. Hey they created an oil tax and it created free money, derp. It fails to mention why the idea makes so much sense, in that everyone benefits from the market economy while having a minimal disruption to it.

I think a much better pitch is to say, markets have made the USA one of the richest countries in the world, but they have not been as good at sharing the wealth. We need a way to ensure that every American has a stake in the market economy, they will support it if they truly benefit when it grows.

I am also of the opinion that it should be funded by monetary policy or land taxes, (again credit jvs) something with minimal economic drag/distortion. Video fails to address that, which is why so many are poo pooing it based on oil.

Anyway despite my negative take on the vids, great idea for a thread!!!

Edit: as far as the paper goes, it suffers from some of the same issues (as I have noted in other threads where the paper was provided). It recommends taxes and justifies them by saying "something kinda similar already exists just at a much smaller level", as if that is a substitute for an analysis on economic impacts. Again this could be a market friendly approach to a market failure, the boat is being missed on that point.

 

[Gandhi]

Delete

 

[Fawlty]

Don't have anything to contribute, other than I'm in favor of trying something to the effect a UBI, but thanks for the good read.

 

[HomerThompson]

Lol at the brush off from @Jack V Savage, he sold me on the idea and is a big proponent of some form of it.

I am a big fan if the idea as well.

Comments on videos, not great

1) "you don't have to work for it." That's BS, in many cases people worked and deferred consumption in exchange for this future income. Capital is not a problem, it's the driving engine of innovation. That suited guy laying on his butt getting free cash is at least somewhat horsehit.

2) what the video fails to address well is that wealth can often be inherited and wealth confers the ability to extract more of the economic surplus that society creates that could arguable go to all sides. This can be seen in finance and executive pay. Capital allows people to rig the system and get more, so to speak.

3) wealth compounds inequality and all of the recent gains in income inequality have accrued to capital. Video is correct. The "why" inequality matters from a democracy and social utility stand point is also important and needs to be addressed.

4) second video really fails to sell NSWF. Hey they created an oil tax and it created free money, derp. It fails to mention why the idea makes so much sense, in that everyone benefits from the market economy while having a minimal disruption to it.

I think a much better pitch is to say, markets have made the USA one of the richest countries in the world, but they have not been as good at sharing the wealth. We need a way to ensure that every American has a stake in the market economy, they will support it if they truly benefit when it grows.

I am also of the opinion that it should be funded by monetary policy or land taxes, (again credit jvs) something with minimal economic drag/distortion. Video fails to address that, which is why so many are poo pooing it based on oil.

Anyway despite my negative take on the vids, great idea for a threat!!!

I giving this post a hard like.

 

[HomerThompson]

I giving this post a hard like.

*I'm

 

[Ripskater]

Another program. They usually just create new or more problems.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Why not just make it really easy to individuals to start their own banks, and or groups of individuals to start their own banks, and then loan money/create money out of thin air to themselves? When this gets too big to fail, they can just get bailouts to keep it going.

I have actually pitched this idea to other small landlords/property managers I know. Between my boss, and all of them they should have enough assets to make their own bank. Then they just loans themselves the money to buy more RE.

 

[Gandhi]

@Kafir-kun fyi I added an edit

 

[HomerThompson]

Another program. They usually just create new or more problems.

Terrific insight. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Islam Imamate]

1) "you don't have to work for it." That's BS, in many cases people worked and deferred consumption in exchange for this future income. Capital is not a problem, it's the driving engine of innovation. That suited guy laying on his butt getting free cash is at least somewhat horsehit.

I also didn't like that part of the video

3) wealth compounds inequality and all of the recent gains in income inequality have accrued to capital. Video is correct. The "why" inequality matters from a democracy and social utility stand point is also important and needs to be addressed.

That's true. One big reason is that inequality correlates with violence both within and between countries but I feel like leftists drop the ball by not pointing to that often enough, they just assume that the massive level of inequality is a self evident social ill.

I am also of the opinion that it should be funded by monetary policy or land taxes, (again credit jvs) something with minimal economic drag/distortion. Video fails to address that, which is why so many are poo pooing it based on oil.

Anyway despite my negative take on the vids, great idea for a threat!!!

Well the US is one of the world's top oil exporters so while we might not have the amount of oil relative to our population like countries such as Norway or Qatar we do have substantial fossil fuel resources and I'm not against considering a tax on them to partly seed the fund.

Edit: as far as the paper goes, it suffers from some of the same issues (as I have noted in other threads where the paper was provided). It recommends taxes and justifies them by saying "something kinda similar already exists just at a much smaller level", as if that is a substitute for an analysis on economic impacts. Again this could be a market friendly approach to a market failure, the boat is being missed on that point.

Yeah that's fair but in defense of the paper it makes many suggestions for various taxes and levies so presumably you could use any combination of them at various levels to get the job done.

 

[Gandhi]

I also didn't like that part of the video

That's true. One big reason is that inequality correlates with violence both within and between countries but I feel like leftists drop the ball by not pointing to that often enough, they just assume that the massive level of inequality is a self evident social ill.

Well the US is one of the world's top oil exporters so while we might not have the amount of oil relative to our population like countries such as Norway or Qatar but we do have substantial fossil fuel resources and I'm not against considering a tax on them to partly seed the fund.

Yeah that's fair but in defense of the paper it makes many suggestions for various taxes and levies so presumably you could use any combination of them at various levels to get the job done.

That's a good point. I have focused more on maintaining democracy and the marginal social utility of redistribution, but a tangible offshoot of that is violence. Ima gonna add that to my quiver. We have to explain why growing and unrestrained inequality is bad.

I'm not against taxes to fund this if reduced consumption or production can be argued as socially beneficial. But the paper is laughable in the way it suggest x% tax on ipo's, "hey that's not different than this SEC levy". It makes no attempt to address the challenge / risks that taxes raise for the economy. I am no Tobin tax fan of course.

Again I pefer monetary policy because you re not directly taking anything away from anyone with a tax, one time or otherwise. I just need to think the distributionary impacts of it though a bit more. .

 

[HIMBOB]

Social impact bonds would be better suited for the American system

What would return be based on / how would impact be measured?

Pretty sure their Norwegian sovereign wealth fund does buy SIBs, so could be trialed with the right product.

 

[Trotsky]

@Kafir-kun public ownership you say?

 

[lifelessheap]

Why not just make it really easy to individuals to start their own banks, and or groups of individuals to start their own banks, and then loan money/create money out of thin air to themselves? When this gets too big to fail, they can just get bailouts to keep it going.

I have actually pitched this idea to other small landlords/property managers I know. Between my boss, and all of them they should have enough assets to make their own bank. Then they just loans themselves the money to buy more RE.

You know, if you challenge the banks they kill you, right?

But local banking is really great deal. Because you aren't controlled by the international banking cartel that controls the world.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

You know, if you challenge the banks they kill you, right?

But local banking is really great deal. Because you aren't controlled by the international banking cartel that controls the world.

Then we need to kill the bankers back. Coming up with some other form of welfare is not the solution.