Rolling Stone: Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For | The Compost Bin | Forums

A A A
Avatar
Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Lost password?
sp_Feed F-Compost-Bin
Rolling Stone: Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For
Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
15 Jan ’14 - 10:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Is this real life?

It's a new year, but one thing hasn't changed: The economy still blows. Five years after Wall Street crashed, America's banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work.

Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But that egalitarian impulse isn't often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. Here are a few things we might want to start fighting for, pronto, if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us.

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

Unemployment blows. The easiest and most direct solution is for the government to guarantee that everyone who wants to contribute productively to society is able to earn a decent living in the public sector. There are millions of people who want to work, and there's tons of work that needs doing – it's a no-brainer. And this idea isn't as radical as it might sound: It's similar to what the federal Works Progress Administration made possible during Roosevelt's New Deal, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. vocally supported a public-sector job guarantee in the 1960s.

A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices, drive up conditions for workers at megacorporations like Walmart and McDonald's, and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed – people to whom conventional stimulus money rarely trickles all the way down. The program would automatically expand during private-sector downturns and contract during private-sector upswings, balancing out the business cycle and sending people from job to job, rather than job to unemployment, when times got tough.

Some economists have proposed running a job guarantee through the non-profit sector, which would make it even easier to suit the job to the worker. Imagine a world where people could contribute the skills that inspire them – teaching, tutoring, urban farming, cleaning up the environment, painting murals – rather than telemarketing or whatever other stupid tasks bosses need done to supplement their millions. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

2. Social Security for All

But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs. What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the jaw-droppingly simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. A proposal along these lines has been gaining traction in Switzerland, and it's starting to get a lot of attention here, too.

We live in the age of 3D printers and self-replicating robots. Actual human workers are increasingly surplus to requirement – that's one major reason why we have such a big unemployment problem. A universal basic income would address this epidemic at the root and provide everyone, in the words of Duke professor Kathi Weeks, "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."

Put another way: A universal basic income, combined with a job guarantee and other social programs, could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary, thereby enabling people to get a life.

3. Take Back The Land

Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve. In a few years, my landlord will probably sell my building to another landlord and make off with the appreciated value of the land s/he also claims to own – which won't even get taxed, as long as s/he ploughs it right back into more real estate.

Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism, is why.

The most mainstream way of flipping the script is a simple land-value tax. By targeting wealthy real estate owners and their free rides, we can fight inequality and poverty directly, make disastrous asset price bubbles impossible and curb Wall Street's hideous bloat. There are cooler ideas out there, too: Municipalities themselves can be big-time landowners, and groups can even create large-scale community land trusts so that the land is held in common. In any case, we have to stop letting rich people pretend they privately own what nature provided everyone.

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

Hoarders blow. Take, for instance, the infamous one percent, whose ownership of the capital stock of this country leads to such horrific inequality. "Capital stock" refers to two things here: the buildings and equipment that workers use to produce goods and services, and the stocks and bonds that represent ownership over the former. The top 10 percent's ownership of the means of production is represented by the fact that they control 80 percent of all financial assets.

This detachment means that there's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that, it's called a sovereign wealth fund. Think of it like a big investment fund that buys up assets from the private sector and pays dividends to all permanent U.S. residents in the form of a universal basic income. Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.

5. A Public Bank in Every State

You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.

There is only one state that currently has a public option for banking: North Dakota. When North Dakotans pay state taxes, the money gets deposited in the state's bank, which in turn offers cheap loans to farmers, students and businesses. The Bank of North Dakota doesn't make seedy, destined-to-default loans, slice them up inscrutably and sell them on a secondary market. It doesn't play around with incomprehensible derivatives and allow its executives to extract billions of dollars. It just makes loans and works with debtors to pay them off.

If that idea – or any of the others described in this piece – sounds good to you, there's a bitter political struggle to be waged. Let's get to work.

Read more: http://www.rollingst.....z2qWklzCSn

Avatar
groinkick
Rancher
Members
Forum Posts: 1667
Member Since:
3 Nov ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
16 Jan ’14 - 5:50 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

They've tried 1-4 already. I think they called it communism. How'd that work out again? 5 is the only one that even seems like it might be a viable idea. He must have come up with that one by accident.

Avatar
nedcmk1
Green Horn
Members
Forum Posts: 50
Member Since:
14 Jan ’14
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
16 Jan ’14 - 8:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

LOL.

I had some empty credits to fill in my back to school venture last spring semester and I took a sociology class. This article sounds like it was written by an under 24 yr old college student who took their first sociology class with a far left professor.

In all honesty I do not think the author personally believe in his nonsense. He declares himself a "progressive white radical". I think he is just trying to be provocative to get hits on his articles, blog, and followers on twitter in hopes of monetizing the popularity. In short I think he has a schtick.

Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
16 Jan ’14 - 9:36 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

that's what I was thinking as well

Avatar
jonathco
Michigan
Rancher
Members
Forum Posts: 1102
Member Since:
12 Oct ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
16 Jan ’14 - 11:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
Quote:
Quote from nedcmk1 on January 16, 2014, 08:33

LOL.

I had some empty credits to fill in my back to school venture last spring semester and I took a sociology class. This article sounds like it was written by an under 24 yr old college student who took their first sociology class with a far left professor.

In all honesty I do not think the author personally believe in his nonsense. He declares himself a "progressive white radical". I think he is just trying to be provocative to get hits on his articles, blog, and followers on twitter in hopes of monetizing the popularity. In short I think he has a schtick.

Sadly, a lot of college kids these days are learning their economics from sociology classes. It's a scary thought. Reminds me of a quote by one of my favorite economists; "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

Avatar
nedcmk1
Green Horn
Members
Forum Posts: 50
Member Since:
14 Jan ’14
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
17 Jan ’14 - 3:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

You have presented the first Murray Rothbard though I have ever come close to agreeing with. It is very true.

Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
26 Jan ’14 - 10:31 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

nice quote Jon

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 698

Currently Online:
61 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

easytapper: 2149

DangerDuke: 2030

groinkick: 1667

PorkChopsMmm: 1515

Gravel Road: 1455

Newest Members:

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 11482

Posts: 58640

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 19842

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Administrators: K