Econoboi, I am trying to get in the Substack game, is it cool with you if I use some of the charts/graphs in your collective ownership article, while crediting you of course?
How I would min/max these for realism and sticker shock:
$2500 month UBI - 7.8 trillion/26.7% of GDP
SWF Contributions - $0.5 trillion/1.7% of GDP
Other Spending - $7.5 trillion/25.1% of GDP
Total=15.8 trillion/53.5% of GDP
This would put us much more in line with other Social Democracies in terms of total spending as a % of GDP, which I think is a much easier sell. I think that having one big benefit as a cash UBI and indexing services such as healthcare, childcare, and education to the UBI would be much simpler and by making these programs self funded by the UBI, they would be more popular and insulated from interference by Republicans because cutting the UBI would be EXTREMELY unpopular and political suicide. Additionally, it must be noted that if I or Econoboi were fully in charge of the economy, $2500 a month would go much further than right now, as I am sure we would both do ultra YIMBYism and SHIMBYism, invest heavily in alternatives to driving such as public transportation and bike infrastructure, as well as eliminate the out of control rent seeking and anti-competitive behavior in our private sector as well as in our healthcare sector. In this version of the economy, $2500 a month is probably enough and then some, and most people would still be working as well, so I don't think "eliminating" these programs would reduce social welfare that much compared to the ideal, and it would greatly alleviate the political constraints of the "ideal" platform. Additionally, there are many low/no cost pro‑growth reforms that could additionally grow the economy above the current rate over time, causing the level of government spending needed to achieve these social welfare effects represent a smaller share of the economy over time. Also, the longer and longer the budget is balanced, the less and less interest we have to pay on debt, the savings for which we could use for the SWF, unemployment insurance, to "revive" Social Security, or just as savings.
We shouldn't do free college, college is signaling. We should pressure existing colleges to have more objective metrics, force them to increase class sizes (at the top end), and cut subsidies to them (in the form of loans). The push for college has been a disaster. Some people need an advanced degree, sure, but many jobs woldnt benefit from one. I dont want more English PhDs without jobs. I know one philosophy student who works at a zoo.
Colleges are just inherently going to be bad at teaching you stuff that you would otherwise learn on the job. Particularly because you aren't getting paid or saving while learning, even if its free, and also because universities can't adapt quickly to changes in market dynamics. Also a lot of on-the-job training is very job-specific and universities are much more generalist in their approach. What would be a better option is just to have something like a voucher that you can use on any training, education, or pay a company to take you on as an intern. The exception to this might be for things like grad schools because funding research is something where the government might be necessary.
Ha, this is quite an expensive proposition! Or is it...
I hope in your follow-up, you will deduct the cost of NOT doing some of these things, like:
- Worse healthcare outcomes, costing more in the long run.
- Less educated people, maybe even more criminality, since less education is a cause of street crime. So, more prisons, less productivity etc.
- The difference between giving people money they will spend on consumption, which stimulates the economy, vs. money they will mostly save, which inflates the economy. Social Security is almost entirely the former, while stock market returns are mostly held by the top 10%, so they become the latter.
- The possibility of paying off the debt with Sovereign Money. OK, off-topic, I guess, but assuming a >$1t deficit is not in line with progressive government issued money, e.g. United States Notes, like president Lincoln issued to fight the Civil War, at 0% interest because they come from the Treasury Department.
Econoboi, I am trying to get in the Substack game, is it cool with you if I use some of the charts/graphs in your collective ownership article, while crediting you of course?
Yep no problem!
How I would min/max these for realism and sticker shock:
$2500 month UBI - 7.8 trillion/26.7% of GDP
SWF Contributions - $0.5 trillion/1.7% of GDP
Other Spending - $7.5 trillion/25.1% of GDP
Total=15.8 trillion/53.5% of GDP
This would put us much more in line with other Social Democracies in terms of total spending as a % of GDP, which I think is a much easier sell. I think that having one big benefit as a cash UBI and indexing services such as healthcare, childcare, and education to the UBI would be much simpler and by making these programs self funded by the UBI, they would be more popular and insulated from interference by Republicans because cutting the UBI would be EXTREMELY unpopular and political suicide. Additionally, it must be noted that if I or Econoboi were fully in charge of the economy, $2500 a month would go much further than right now, as I am sure we would both do ultra YIMBYism and SHIMBYism, invest heavily in alternatives to driving such as public transportation and bike infrastructure, as well as eliminate the out of control rent seeking and anti-competitive behavior in our private sector as well as in our healthcare sector. In this version of the economy, $2500 a month is probably enough and then some, and most people would still be working as well, so I don't think "eliminating" these programs would reduce social welfare that much compared to the ideal, and it would greatly alleviate the political constraints of the "ideal" platform. Additionally, there are many low/no cost pro‑growth reforms that could additionally grow the economy above the current rate over time, causing the level of government spending needed to achieve these social welfare effects represent a smaller share of the economy over time. Also, the longer and longer the budget is balanced, the less and less interest we have to pay on debt, the savings for which we could use for the SWF, unemployment insurance, to "revive" Social Security, or just as savings.
We shouldn't do free college, college is signaling. We should pressure existing colleges to have more objective metrics, force them to increase class sizes (at the top end), and cut subsidies to them (in the form of loans). The push for college has been a disaster. Some people need an advanced degree, sure, but many jobs woldnt benefit from one. I dont want more English PhDs without jobs. I know one philosophy student who works at a zoo.
“Ideal set of institutions”, an ideal education system would be worth universalizing because it wouldn’t be signaling.
Colleges are just inherently going to be bad at teaching you stuff that you would otherwise learn on the job. Particularly because you aren't getting paid or saving while learning, even if its free, and also because universities can't adapt quickly to changes in market dynamics. Also a lot of on-the-job training is very job-specific and universities are much more generalist in their approach. What would be a better option is just to have something like a voucher that you can use on any training, education, or pay a company to take you on as an intern. The exception to this might be for things like grad schools because funding research is something where the government might be necessary.
Nigga, this is only part 1? Why didn't you write both parts at once? Blue balling me like this
Ha, this is quite an expensive proposition! Or is it...
I hope in your follow-up, you will deduct the cost of NOT doing some of these things, like:
- Worse healthcare outcomes, costing more in the long run.
- Less educated people, maybe even more criminality, since less education is a cause of street crime. So, more prisons, less productivity etc.
- The difference between giving people money they will spend on consumption, which stimulates the economy, vs. money they will mostly save, which inflates the economy. Social Security is almost entirely the former, while stock market returns are mostly held by the top 10%, so they become the latter.
- The possibility of paying off the debt with Sovereign Money. OK, off-topic, I guess, but assuming a >$1t deficit is not in line with progressive government issued money, e.g. United States Notes, like president Lincoln issued to fight the Civil War, at 0% interest because they come from the Treasury Department.