( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )
See for example the French Revolution. Millions of unnecessary deaths due to political repression and wars. And then, 80 years after it all started, finally achieving democracy. All because those in charge at any given moment cared more about their ideas than people.
If you think we can achieve utopia if only everyone signs on to your wonderful idea, it's a sign that you are not only wrong, but should seriously seek counseling.
2. Elimination of usury applied to the money supply of the country in question. That is, issuing money without having a central bank charge interest on the issuance.
I am sure there are more.
https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-...
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and...
There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.
Put pressure though taxes, regulations, etc that benefit people owning things to do stuff with them and penalize people owning things to make money from somebody else doing things with them.
Investment will always be an important mechanism, it just needs to be a bit more disadvantaged than it is at the moment.
One of the mechanisms is as simple as taxing vacancy. If you own commercial or residential property that isn’t occupied, your taxes go way up to encourage you to drop prices until it gets used or you decide to sell.
Agreed, but a failure to reduce it would probably lead to the same thing eventually.
Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)
> Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes.
I see exactly zero evidence that our current practice allowing obscene generational wealth is encouraging sound long-term thinking from our plutocract rulers.
Consider the first point: yes, you can make them "healthy long-term thinkers", but without resources — especially when those resources are expropriated for the value of those with far different or far less long-range aims for them — it will only get them so far. I'm suggesting that encouraging long-term thinking on the part of individuals and their families, with part of that encouragement allowing them to build and maintain significant financial reserves and control of businesses, resources, etc., will have far more salutary effects than allowing those resources to be strip-mined for the sake of investors, corporate raiders, and government indulgences. What is currently lacking is an incentive for those who hold great resources to do more than either live large off of them or put them into ridiculous "charities" or "foundations" that end up doing very, very little of use. At least Carnegie built libraries; today's people buying their consciences back tend to purchase an assortment of politicians. Such a great use of resources.
Anyway, we are not going to agree: you think a handful of hyperwealthy families will be better for humanity in the long term; I think a broadly shared prosperity is better. I believe historical evidence is on my side, but that's a much longer discussion than I'm willing to have here.
If you say you care about actual people, you should care about giving more of them a chance, and worry less about protecting the non-existent property interests of the dead.
Why? It is non-obvious to me that we should have a collective say in why the rich become rich.
they're also a big part of how humans fulfil the basic necessities of life
why should this "ownership" gained centuries ago through violence or social rank, be the reason for the average person of today having pay 50% of their wages in tribute to the descendant of that original conqueror/noble ?
There are more of us than them. Property rights are agreed and enforced by society.