1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-n...
The problem is when “we” wants lower taxes or regulations to enable more consumption of tropical island vacations or recreational vehicles, or any other individual consumption item.
The political will is unfortunately not there. On this very forum, someone was claiming that a 1 adult to 4 infant ratio was too restrictive!
I mean... that sounds pretty extreme tbh. Literal infants, sure, but for any actual grade of school a 1:4 ratio sounds like too much to me.
No one suggested any ratios for actual “grade of school”.
I mean now we're all too poor to do so, but wouldn't that be nice?
What of my case? I pay taxes for schools like everyone else, but I won't even use the schools for my children.
"You" are always welcome to donate any amount of your money to the government. In the USA, its the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt.
You won't though.
The real issue is that those in power don't actually want to lift up those that are struggling. I'm not saying there aren't some good politicians--I'm saying politicians don't have the power.
When the government isn't acting on behalf of the people, more taxes would only serve to harm.
Even under MMT you need some sort of taxes to take back money, otherwise the money you print turns into inflation.
And in my opinion (not verified or anything) we're seeing such strong Cantillon effects that inflation is being regulated via soaring asset prices.
So it's harder to buy a house and or a share of SPY, but everyday goods are inflating way below the increase in dollar supply atm.
Edit: Lol, except lumber.
You can certainly do that under MMT, but then that would be the equivalent of not having taxes at all.
"If you’re unemployed it’s not because there isn’t any work
"Just look around: A housing shortage, crime, pollution; we need better schools and parks. Whatever our needs, they all require work. And as long as we have unsatisfied needs, there’s work to be done.
"So ask yourself, what kind of world has work but no jobs. It’s a world where work is not related to satisfying our needs, a world where work is only related to satisfying the profit needs of business.
"This country was not built by the huge corporations or government bureaucracies. It was built by people who work. And, it is working people who should control the work to be done. Yet, as long as employment is tied to somebody else’s profits, the work won’t get done."
If I just want someone to help me plumb a bathroom, they have to have license and insurance, they need to file to be a corporation themselves, they need to file a permit to start the work, they need to have a final inspection, and they have to pay taxes on what I pay them.
On top of this supplies are becoming ever more expensive unless you're a big enough buyer, so the little company or one independent plumber can't even compete with larger companies on cost of materials and tools.
I basically do all my household remodeling myself as the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Or is the idea that we have barista‘s because that is profitable, but it is not profitable to improve infrastructure?
> fighting irrelevance
This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then.
> When so much work can be performed by machines
Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business.
Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner.
But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs.
Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is?
Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.
But can they compete against a multinational corporation that has better economies of scale?
And before you scream about this being pedantic, perhaps first reconsider the original premise that you are proposing: automation taking over things and reducing job availability to nil. It's a fantastical premise to set.
Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised.
EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).
What makes you think that the little guy will have access to the same prices as a megacorp? Walmart is famously able to squeeze suppliers[1] because it has superior bargaining power. I doubt a mom and pop shop can do the same. Even if we somehow assume that the prices for supplies is the same, there's still the matter of cost of production. Large companies can benefit from pooled resources (eg. being able to hire engineering teams to optimize processes), or vertically integrate (eg. like how apple with their home grown processors).
>Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised.
My "reaction" consists of a one sentence question. I'm not sure how anyone would think that's a validation of anything, other than you trying to be smug. As for the reference to marx: I fail to see how it's relevant. Are arguments by him automatically wrong?
>EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).
Please check your own arguments before calling others "profoundly intellectually dishonest". You're basically arguing that because some business/sectors haven't consolidated yet, that consolidation isn't happening. By that logic global warming isn't happening either because there's still snow in some places and that some places are even cooling.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSKCN0SD0C...
Learn to read. I never argued that. I clearly attributed consolidation outcomes in the economy to collusion between Washington and Wall Street.
This is proven. Anti-competitive regulation i.e. regulatory capture is more prevalent than ever.
The most recent example of blatant anti-competitive collusion was the recent case of multiple Big Tech companies colluding against Parler. And the well-paid Wall street puppets in Washington did absolutely nothing about it and often publicly spoke up in favor of it. Pure & corrupt crony consolidation.
Your argument, like Marx, works in favor of crony capitalism because it creates a false dichotomy between "inevitable consolidation" for a top few elite OR complete radical revolution destroying everything and starting over. The purpose of a false dichotomy being of course to obscure the actual truth which is that consolidation of the economy does not occur from a free market but only occurs from corruption, bureaucracy, and anti-competitive tactics.
It's pure idiocy. Full stop.
Go read some Von Neumann and Nash and educate yourself about actually likelihoods of outcomes.
Did you even read my comment?
And if you did read my comment then did you actually understand it?
And if you actually understood it then can you actually address the points made in it instead of asking an entirely already answered question?