This situation in untenable. We need universal basic income. It can be financed if we tax the rich. It won’t lead to inflation higher than the extra income. It merely gives small and middle sized companies a way to compete in the economy.
I don’t know if universal basic income would really do anything in the long run. I don’t think it would lead to overall run off inflation, but I dont doubt for a second that landlords would immediately increase rent.
We don’t really need more money supply, we need more protections in areas of economics that should rightfully be considered natural monopolies.
If we didn’t have to spend so much on essentials that should be subsidized or price controlled by the government like housing, food, utilities, and healthcare, then we’d have more to stimulate other areas of the economy.
Increasing the money supply without implementing mechanisms for regulation is just a complicated economic stimulus for landlords, produce markets, and utility companies.
if you tax the rich, they need to ask for higher prices of the products they sell to still make a profit. this is a partial inflation.
however, small companies run by non-billionaires, like worker cooperatives and local businesses, would be exempt from the taxes and therefore have a competitive advantage. this is my goal.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder and therefore will act in a way that maximizes profits. It’s just what they do as a consequence of what they are. In candyland this leads to overproduction as companies race for existing markets and seek to penetrate new ones, and as a consequence they end up making a hell of a lot more than what they need, which leads to better access and lower prices for the consumer. In the real world? The classic example of something capitalism is really good at making is a pencil, and you have to hand it to them. Pencils are in fact cheap as hell and very readily available. Food, shelter, and medicine, on the other hand…
I really want to see a change to that fundamental shareholder law, that allows for things like:
A) A company is structured around a particular mission, which may have nothing to do with money in particular, just set up as a “shared goal”
B) Any profit motivations must acknowledge both short-term and long-term. If a company wants to replace their flour with sawdust, then a board member can readily explain this will likely lead to a long-term dropoff in customers and that such an action should be legally barred.
Case A is possible if the organization’s mission/goal is written in the organization’s charter. The mission has to be set at the organization’s founding, however. Changing the mission later is difficult or close to impossible. Note that such an organization might not be profit-oriented, and therefore might have difficulty finding investors, which means it will have a difficult time to start and operate in the world, because investors are typically looking for companies that return a profit at some point in the future. So, the difficulty is really more about finding investors than running a non-profit company. If you can find investors though, you’re golden.
Case B is technically already the case. The board of shareholders decides on the company’s strategy, and they can decide to favor long-term profit over short-term profits. The reason they often don’t do that is because in today’s world, there’s a lot of structural changes in the world around us all the time (think of all the technology that was developed in the last 50 years alone), and so it’s very difficult for a company to keep to a long-term plan at all, so they often make short-term plans instead, which leads to the short-sightedness that you already mentioned. If the world around us was more stable and provided more consistent operating conditions for companies for long-term planning, companies could rely on that and settle down on a long-term strategy. Which has simply not been the case in the last 50 years or so.
however, small companies run by non-billionaires, like worker cooperatives and local businesses, would be exempt from the taxes and therefore have a competitive advantage. this is my goal.
What makes a large business more competitive compared to a small one isn’t taxation, it’s the economics of scale in regards to logistics and production. All of a corporation’s activities are already exempt from most taxation, the only thing we tax a corporation for is on their profit.
Being a non profit doesn’t automatically make you more competitive, operating at lower cost with higher productivity is what makes you competitive.
I mean you could, but what would be the point if housing, healthcare, and food security were a right? UBI is just a bandage some billionaires advocate for just so they don’t have to pay for a working healthcare system
This situation in untenable. We need universal basic income. It can be financed if we tax the rich. It won’t lead to inflation higher than the extra income. It merely gives small and middle sized companies a way to compete in the economy.
Best America will do is feudalism
Now it would be more accurate to call it technofeudalism.
I don’t know if universal basic income would really do anything in the long run. I don’t think it would lead to overall run off inflation, but I dont doubt for a second that landlords would immediately increase rent.
We don’t really need more money supply, we need more protections in areas of economics that should rightfully be considered natural monopolies.
If we didn’t have to spend so much on essentials that should be subsidized or price controlled by the government like housing, food, utilities, and healthcare, then we’d have more to stimulate other areas of the economy.
Increasing the money supply without implementing mechanisms for regulation is just a complicated economic stimulus for landlords, produce markets, and utility companies.
if you tax the rich, they need to ask for higher prices of the products they sell to still make a profit. this is a partial inflation.
however, small companies run by non-billionaires, like worker cooperatives and local businesses, would be exempt from the taxes and therefore have a competitive advantage. this is my goal.
That’s bullshit, they’d make a profit anyway, but it would be less of a profit, the poor souls… and they’d still hike prices anyway.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder and therefore will act in a way that maximizes profits. It’s just what they do as a consequence of what they are. In candyland this leads to overproduction as companies race for existing markets and seek to penetrate new ones, and as a consequence they end up making a hell of a lot more than what they need, which leads to better access and lower prices for the consumer. In the real world? The classic example of something capitalism is really good at making is a pencil, and you have to hand it to them. Pencils are in fact cheap as hell and very readily available. Food, shelter, and medicine, on the other hand…
I really want to see a change to that fundamental shareholder law, that allows for things like:
A) A company is structured around a particular mission, which may have nothing to do with money in particular, just set up as a “shared goal”
B) Any profit motivations must acknowledge both short-term and long-term. If a company wants to replace their flour with sawdust, then a board member can readily explain this will likely lead to a long-term dropoff in customers and that such an action should be legally barred.
A and B are both technically already possible.
Case A is possible if the organization’s mission/goal is written in the organization’s charter. The mission has to be set at the organization’s founding, however. Changing the mission later is difficult or close to impossible. Note that such an organization might not be profit-oriented, and therefore might have difficulty finding investors, which means it will have a difficult time to start and operate in the world, because investors are typically looking for companies that return a profit at some point in the future. So, the difficulty is really more about finding investors than running a non-profit company. If you can find investors though, you’re golden.
Case B is technically already the case. The board of shareholders decides on the company’s strategy, and they can decide to favor long-term profit over short-term profits. The reason they often don’t do that is because in today’s world, there’s a lot of structural changes in the world around us all the time (think of all the technology that was developed in the last 50 years alone), and so it’s very difficult for a company to keep to a long-term plan at all, so they often make short-term plans instead, which leads to the short-sightedness that you already mentioned. If the world around us was more stable and provided more consistent operating conditions for companies for long-term planning, companies could rely on that and settle down on a long-term strategy. Which has simply not been the case in the last 50 years or so.
What makes a large business more competitive compared to a small one isn’t taxation, it’s the economics of scale in regards to logistics and production. All of a corporation’s activities are already exempt from most taxation, the only thing we tax a corporation for is on their profit.
Being a non profit doesn’t automatically make you more competitive, operating at lower cost with higher productivity is what makes you competitive.
Porque no las dos
I mean you could, but what would be the point if housing, healthcare, and food security were a right? UBI is just a bandage some billionaires advocate for just so they don’t have to pay for a working healthcare system
Did you mean to say if they weren’t a right?
I meant if housing, healthcare, and food were guaranteed, what would be the point of UBI?
Politicians currently advocating for UBI are doing so as a replacement for things like universal healthcare, not in conjunction with it.