Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Author Message
CaiusFilimonG
Member
*


Posts: 72
Words count: 16,881
Group: Basic
Joined: Jul2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 1
Experience: 93
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #1
Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

This is a compilation of some of my ideas about how a national economy should be run. It involves neoliberal and state capitalist ideas, a very weird mixture of radically different ideologies if I may say so myself.

In general, the economy would be focused on simply creating an environment that is very welcoming to enterprising and businesses in general, while focusing the country's entire expenditure on, pretty much, investing. As such, the Aggregate Demand of the country should be derived in a large proportion from investment spending, while people are rather discouraged to descend into mindless consumerism, and instead incentivize them not to save, or to spend, but rather to invest. The economy would then never be in shortage of 'trend growth' which would allow the economy to remain in a constant boom, with Aggregate Demand (current growth) being kept, on purpose, at a lower level than the Trend Growth. Of course, that would leave some people unemployed, but a 4% unemployment rate has never hurt any country. It's rather healthy. Current growth is defined by the aggregate demand in an economy. Trend growth is defined by an economy's ability to produce G&S, in terms of value (namely, taking into account volume AND quality).

Taxation:
1) A very low flat tax rate. However, if certain individuals pass a certain threshold of 'liquid' savings or, simply, 'cash' savings, they would be taxed higher and higher on their income. I.e.:
A person has 0% income tax rate until the said person's bank accounts reach $500,000. Past that, the income tax would become 10%. Past $1,000,000, the income tax would become 20%. Past $1,500,000 it would become 30%, and so on and so forth up until it reaches a percentage of 60. As such, any value above $3,000,000 would be taxed 60% (in FURTHER income, not the savings in the bank accounts).

Advantages:
A) People would be encouraged hugely to work harder and for longer, as well as to improve their own skills continuously, given how they would be able to hold onto the entire basket of the fruits of their labor. By the point where a person would be taxed on his income, one would already have more than enough money saved up to cover any 'uncertainties'. Past that point, the person would then be incentivized greatly to invest the money, or spend it, not allowing people to hoard indefinite amounts of money.

B) In conjunction with the next point (high consumption tax), people would be encouraged to not use their income to spend on useless things that would require scarce resources to be produced, but rather invest, so that their income would increase even more in the future. By then, their income would be so sizeable (given how the economy would constantly invest in Capital and its trend growth, and so would not suffer recessions) that the consumption taxes would not even matter anymore, and they would be able to spend significantly more. Likewise, at first, until people reach the end of their non-taxable threshold, they would be more encouraged to spend on improving their own skills and abilities, such as taking on courses and degrees, so that their income would increase ever more.

2) Consumption Taxes: High taxes on consumption (with an absolute exemption on necessities, such as (healthy) foods, toilet paper and other basic needs).

3) No land tax: If it is the main domicile of a person AND does not exceed certain market values (of the house itself; not the house AND land) or certain plot of land sizes. In rest, land taxes can be very low if the land is thought to be used effectively and beneficially to the economy; if it is left vacant or un/der developed land taxes greatly increase to force the use of land. Vacant houses (if person owns more than two houses, and the houses are not too large/expensive) are highly taxed to encourage people to rent houses out for cheap, so that there would not be large amounts of wasted houses, and most certainly now allow for ghost cities to arise such as in China.

Advantages:

A) Would discourage people from spending on useless Goods and Services that would simply waste scare resources, to, in conjunction with the income taxes, invest more in the economy so that their incomes would rise in the future to then allow them to spend more on 'useless' goods and services, despite the high taxes.

Additional Government Revenue:

The government itself would ensure its revenue by owning a sizeable amount of private corporations within the economy. The companies themselves would be entirely privately managed (in the exact same way in which a private company would be managed and run). These companies would simply serve as a form of revenue for the government. Why not just use Modern Money Mechanics to print off money to meet the government's deficit spending? Because, this way, the government could also take significant control of the economy if need be, by ordering the companies to do certain things, and over ride their private management whenever deemed necessary. This would be a more direct way than just company regulation. Likewise, government representatives would be present on any and all stockholder/manager meetings of any large and significant companies. Even if they would not have any real say, they would still report to the government if any of the business decisions seem to be illegal or very damaging to the economy/the state. Likewise, employees would be greatly punished for not exposing corporate secrets (bad secrets, that is) and be rewarded greatly from the corporation's own purse if they would be whistle blowers.

Some economic sectors could be owned in the majority by government owned shares, leading to oligopolies (formed by at least 10 different companies) that would be entirely privately managed (independent from the state). As such there would be some domestic competition ensured, while the companies would also be at risk from losing market share from foreign competition (as tariffs would be effectively non existent in such oligopoly economic sectors to increase competition pressure), while the economic sector itself would benefit from economies of scale given the larger size of the present businesses.

The business structures of the state owned corporations would be focused on performance rewarding and profit sharing. Namely, managers of individual departments and sub-departments would cash in on a certain % of the department's contributions to profit. The employees themselves would also receive some profit of the company as a whole, while if the company is incurring a loss, the workers are going to be negatively affected as well.

Modern Money Mechanics: The government would not shy away from simply printing money to fund its deficits. Reason being that the economy would already be mostly geared for investment spending and not just mindless consumption. Inflation is mostly caused by the current growth (aggregate demand) surpassing trend growth (the country's capacity to produce G&S). Namely, nowadays, when governments do Quantitative Easing, they simply spend the money without the slightest bit of care, leading to inflation, because the money was not used specifically for increasing the country's trend growth, which would actually reduce inflation and not increase it. As such, QE in such an economy would be less certain to lead to inflation. Likewise, the government would be wary on what it would spend its money, so it would put even more focus on further improving trend growth.

Government Spending:

Subsidized healthcare in state owned hospitals that would be privately managed (profit oriented). However, the state would scale healthcare subsidies on the income of the injured person. People would be able to incur significant 'debts' to the healthcare before it would even have to be repaid or the people's incomes would be significantly impacted (by the government forcefully deducting money from their income). Healthcare would essentially be rather free, with checkups, medication, and what not, but people would still be slightly taken aback from trying to abuse the system, as, after one too many 'broken arms' by 'mistake' while being entirely 'conscious and responsible' the healthcare system would start taxing such individuals. Likewise, there would be absolutely no healthcare money spent on boobjobs or ass jobs, or stomach squeezing(?)(Meant to decrease stomach sizes to make people feel more full while eating less food... meant to help people slim down), like what's happening with the NHS.

Direct investment in: infrastructure (mostly train/bus infrastructure; not roads) and simply companies all around the spectrum, to increase trend growth (and the productive potential of the economy).

The government would ensure that any person would be able to live a... livable life, whether the said people are willing or not to get a real job. People, to be able to cash their benefits, would have to participate in 'makework initiatives', namely, reading to the elderly, guarding public buildings, cleaning up the streets, picking up the garbage (whatever, really; doesn't have to have a purely profitable objective, but rather social benefits), etc. They would also receive social housing. As such, a person could live their entire lives dependent on the state.

Very large amounts of money to be spent on education, with the money NOT supposed to be going into useless huge touch screen HD monitors in every single class room class, or 2 desktops for every teacher's computer in every classroom (like in the UK), but rather, on the teachers' salaries and training, as well as a VERY large amount of 'extra classes'. Mandatory classes of geopolitics/economics/business/morals and ethics/law/finance/psychology (teaching mostly the basic, of course, with exams being mandatory), with dozens over dozens of extra classes covering various subjects. A system based on very regular examinations (two tests and two exams a week; it's worked wonders on the 'thug' or, rather, 'too cool for school' kids in my old school). Parents would be fined if their children would not do well in school, while the children would also be reprimanded with detentions for not meeting certain requirements. School leaving age: 18; 15 if the child would want to become an apprentice. Children should be given enough leeway from a rather young age on what classes they would want to choose, and be allowed to choose in between to find something they like.

Corruption: Any public servant would be liable to losing half or even 100% of their wealth if caught accepting a bribe. Namely, if a public servant would accept a $500 bribe to forge some documents for me, I could simply register the evidence and show up to a court; if proven guilty, the public servant would give 100% of his belongings to me; 49% if married. People would try bribing public officials everywhere, making them paranoid and simply afraid of accepting any sort of bribes. If caught accepting a bribe and I did not report it, not wanting his wealth but just wanting his corrupt job done which would help me more, the public servant and I would face at least ten years of prison, regardless of the bribe amount.

Population: indoctrinated by the education system to be hard working and ethical (but not necessarily very disciplined, so as to allow for some imagination/creativity), the government would also significantly encourage immigration to allow for more and more labor to be available for the country's constantly increasing industrial capacity.

Labor regulations: No minimum wage, no maximum working hours, no strident health and safety regulations, extensive government social housing to allow for labor mobility everywhere (i.e.: very cheap housing), and other neo liberal policies meant to increase labor mobility. Trade unions would not have very significant powers, as the majority of incentives for businesses to improve working conditions and pay would be the constantly LOW unemployment.

Capital Flight: Very high taxes on capital flight to keep the money within the economy. This way, the Quantitative Easing of the government would also be less detrimental to the country's currency value as the money would not exactly be able to leave the country as easily, increasing the supply of the country's currency on the international market.

Trade Balance: the exporting of natural resources would be taxed extremely high, effectively banning their exportation. The Trade Balance should be mostly positive, while most imports being mostly of raw resources only. Namely, the country would import MUCH more (possible) wealth than it exports. As in the raw resources are cheaper can be refined and transformed into G&S while the exported goods would already be refined or be services, which would be of much higher value. Namely, Neo-Colonialism.

Research: Huge investment in the exploration of the solar system and especially on a space elevator and asteroid mining (google search Planetary Resources).

Likewise, gov ownership of companies would not be for 'revenue' reasons. It would allow the government to intervene in the economy more easily with the use of the said companies as well, and force the company to do certain things which are deemed appropriate by a special commision of the top economists. Why not just allow the commision to intervene in any private company, and not have the government to own privately managed companies? Well, because it would anger the private owners of the company's shares. If the shares are owned by the government, there would be no one to anger, and there would be NO destruciton of the confidence in the economy, as the government would not just force any privately owned corporation to do what its special commision of economists would want, but only just already state owned ones. Any thoughts? I guess that this all encompasses a large amount of things, but if you find something worth debating about, give it a shot! Try and take my 'theory' down a notch; let's see if I can properly maintain and promote my own opinions.

IMPORTANT: THERE WOULD BE NO CASH IN THE ECONOMY. All payments, from individual to company or company to company, would be done electronically.


The most OP books: http://serbanvcenache.blogspot.ro/2014/0...-live.html

This post was last modified: 05.12.2014 17:30 by CaiusFilimonG.

03.12.2014 19:01
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Titian
Benevolently Watching You
*


Posts: 5,344
Words count: 554,088
Group: Basic
Joined: Nov2009
Status: Offline
Reputation: 94
Experience: 1706
Glory Points: 1364680
Medals: 5643

Post: #2
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

1) This is not what we call "Flat Income Tax". This is progressive taxation filled with fantasy values.

2 (in conjunction with 1B)) Productive activity is undertaken to create value. Value is obtained from utility. Utility is obtained from consumption. If you cannot consume, why would you produce anything?

3) There is already a cost attached to unused land: opportunity costs. Hence one would be stupid not to make (profitable) use of land. If one finds oneself unable to use it, then one should sell it somebody who can. If one owns a one storey house and then suddenly discovers that it's right next to Central Park, demolish it and build a sky scraper.


The entire rest)
*Sigh* Rolleyes


"If you grab them by their balls, their hearts and minds will follow." (Yes, Minister)

04.12.2014 03:07
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,856
Words count: 1,597,963
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #3
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Titian Wrote:
3) There is already a cost attached to unused land: opportunity costs. Hence one would be stupid not to make (profitable) use of land. If one finds oneself unable to use it, then one should sell it somebody who can. If one owns a one storey house and then suddenly discovers that it's right next to Central Park, demolish it and build a sky scraper.


The entire rest)
*Sigh* Rolleyes

LoL, Titian. You need to leave your apartment and actually go out in the real world and see the vast amounts of lands WHO are kept unused, simply because some rich speculators ARE waiting for the right moment to sell. Either they're waiting for the government to come and make a highway nearby or on their plot of lands to they can obtain big bucks, or they are simply waiting for others to come along and improve the region before they sell it. Here in Romania, that's exactly the case, simply because there's no progressive property tax and the property tax in place is a breeze. In short, if land owners are not pressed to make use of the land by fiscal means and they're content to live off other assets or business - and wait for the "right" time to make big profits, then their fields are gonna keep gathering dust.
There's a reason why a land tax was conceptualized as far back as ancient times, precisely to determine the wealthy landed nobles to keep their fields WORKED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Mencius advocated for land tax around 300 BCE.

Quote:
"In past times, when King Wen ruled at the city of Qí, he took only one part in nine as a tax on those who tilled the land [a land tax], and those who served his government inherited their stipends. At the border, goods in trade were inspected but no fees were levied [no import duties restricting free trade], no restrictions were placed on the use of fish traps installed by dams and weirs [no taxes on capital goods]."


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
04.12.2014 08:12
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimonG
Member
*


Posts: 72
Words count: 16,881
Group: Basic
Joined: Jul2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 1
Experience: 93
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #4
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Tit, it is not a progressive income tax either. It's obviously something made up which does not really have any name. There are no tax brackets either; it only depends on the money saved up by a person, not the income of a person.

Likewise, as I said, basic necessities would not be taxed, and the population would be constantly increasing due to immigration. I believe in an economy bustling with people, as that can lead to a bustling economy. Likewise, most people could be from much poorer nations who would be able to find work, while their children would be taken care of and educated. Instead of putting more people on this Earth by encouraging birth rates, to accomplish my 'objective' of having a growing population, I'd rather there would simply be more people given opportunities (from other, poorer nations suffering from serious overpopulation). This would keep the cycle going, as the trend growth keeps increasing as more and more people move in to work, while the current growth (aggregate demand) also keeps increasing as more and more people move in to live in the country (spend on basic needs with a lower amount spent on 'luxury' goods and invest) leading to an increase in aggregate demand. This aversion to luxury goods will ensure that current growth will not catch up to trend growth, and there would be constant spare capacity in the economy.

Moreover, people WILL be able to afford luxury/useless consumer goods; the taxes would simply discourage them UNTIL they've worked hard a significant amount of their life and invested the money in the economy, by which point their income would more than make up for the taxes.

But I'm quite curious what you people might think about my twisted 'Anti-Corruption' ideas =P


The most OP books: http://serbanvcenache.blogspot.ro/2014/0...-live.html

This post was last modified: 04.12.2014 21:06 by CaiusFilimonG.

04.12.2014 21:02
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chad7405
The Fascist Libertarian
*


Posts: 187
Words count: 36,300
Group: Basic
Joined: Sep2013
Status: Offline
Reputation: 7
Experience: 773
Glory Points: 100
Medals: 1

Teutoburg
Post: #5
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Your heart is in the right place but if you remember me I show up randomly to spit hot money truth.
First, the tax system. It's a good concept, but it completely disincentives people to save money, thus driving your mindless consumerism you hate so much. Why save if it means future burden? Also, since necessities aren't taxed, i as an intelligent person would take all my money, clear the local grocer, and sell it on the street or hoard like a lunatic. Thus I'm tax evading by not saving and using important goods that other people need uselessly to fund my own self interest. I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again: I believe people are born to be 'good', interpret that as you will, but no one and i mean NO ONE will pass up the opportunity to be rich and not have to really do anything to get it. If you have flooding immigration like you propose, then the cost of living would skyrocket and money would become scarce and more and more meaningless as people have to scavenge and barter for those who were lucky enough to come across the limited food and gasoline and other necessary supplies. You'd be creating an inadvertent oligarchy. And that kind of foils your plan for government ownership of businesses and financing of projects and such by printing money because it becomes pointless; people will want food, not untaxed, worthless money.
Secondly, the economic system. We've been over the corporate system where you want several companies to oversee key sectors that are basically government owned but privately operated with a socialistic profit-sharing as well as loss-sharing program. The immediate problem is corruption. No way some doof is going to actually follow rules and regulations when there is a set amount of companies and sectors allowed to exist. They'll conglomerate and screw everyone. That said, the workers for the particular companies may benefit for a short time from the profit at the expense of those not working in those sectors, but in the long run anyway they'll be replaced with robots or who cares what as long as they don't have to share their money. We don't want to do that. with everything else going on as well, it would create massive inflation on top of inflation as these sectors rebel and monopolize and what happens when these lunatics take control of the limited food stores? Somalia. Look up the American involvement in the 1990's in Somalia where we had to go bail out the failed government and starving people who were under the oligarchy of gangs and crazies who had all the food, oil, and foreign money.
Don't be like Somalia.
Get DirecTV.


When in doubt, keep calm and blame a liberal
05.12.2014 01:02
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,856
Words count: 1,597,963
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #6
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Ok, fast read through those proposals, and right off the bat I don't like them. I wouldn't want to pay a super excise on dildos, strap-ons, external HDDs, video-games, musical instruments, etc. And high consumption taxes just encourage the shadow economy.

Second, I don't want government to tax savings, aka bank deposits. Cause it can't keep tabs on liquidity anyway; it can't send inspectors to my house and look under my mattress. And if it can, then that's a country I wouldn't want to be in. So by taxing deposits, that makes people get their money out of the banking system and encourages them to hoard.

Third, why not just have a progressive tier wealth tax WITHOUT taxing income (aka punishing labor)?


No minimum wage and no working hour regulation is akin to a return to feudalism; and I definitely don't want such a thing.

Your stance on QE shows that you don't understand what QE is about. QE is about giving investor confidence and inflating assets prices. Under QE, the CB is unprinting money and printing it in a different form. QE isn't money printing (not helicopter drop, that's fiscal policy) and it isn't inflationary. Monetary policy is all about balancing the interests of lenders and debtors. That's why lenders favor deflation and debtors favor inflation. And since that the middle class and the poor are usually the ones with debts to pay - because the system forces them to go into debt, since government is not helping them enough... I favor low inflation during deleveraging periods rather than low deflation - because the latter increases the value (burden) of the debt. And I favor low deflation during leveraging periods in order to decrease the rate at which private debt levels rise.

As for trade, you wouldn't have to worry about capital flight - because the government, under your proposals, is doing pretty much all of the investment. Since you're against exporting raw materials, then I imagine you'd focus on manufactured goods. Well, you're going to have to compete with countries who are traditional powerhouses in this business - hence, why you;d like to turn your country into a sweatshop with no working hour regulations and no minimum wage.

As for state owned assets with profit-oriented management; that's fine. Though, if we're talking about water and electricity, I'd rather have the national government selling it to households and firms AT COST. The potential losses incurred by these state owned companies can be covered from the national budget via deficit spending - no need to increase taxes or cut spending.

It's like with the privatization of notary business in Romania. Before that, government provided the service at cost. Now, since it's privatized, the notaries make HUGE profits out of what? Reading some documents and applying a fucking seal. Privatizing government bureaucracy and asking huge sums of money in return for something the citizen is NOT responsible for. If ever a thing was theft, THAT IS IT!

In short, I don't agree with the command-exploitation policies you've outlined here. And I'll never agree to neoliberal policy prescriptions.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 05.12.2014 13:11 by Helsworth.

05.12.2014 13:02
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimonG
Member
*


Posts: 72
Words count: 16,881
Group: Basic
Joined: Jul2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 1
Experience: 93
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #7
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

chad7405 Wrote:
Your heart is in the right place but if you remember me I show up randomly to spit hot money truth.
First, the tax system. It's a good concept, but it completely disincentives people to save money, thus driving your mindless consumerism you hate so much. **** The consumption taxes would discourage people to consumer like idiots; likewise, tell me of how many people you know that have anywhere close to $1,000,000 CASH saved in their bank accounts. **** Why save if it means future burden? **** The main idea is not even for people to save you titty =P It's meant to make people feel discouraged to consume money on stupid crap; even if they'd want to, they couldn't spend as much on a regular wage. They'd have to work rather hard a long part of their life, INVESTING (WHICH IS CONSIDERED SPENDING AS IT'S PART OF AGGREGATE DEMAND) a large part of their earned money TO THEN, AFTER A WHILE, to have a very high income, allowing them to spend mindlessly, AFTER CONTRIBUTING TO THE ECONOMY IN A VERY SERIOUS MANNER **** Also, since necessities aren't taxed, i as an intelligent person would take all my money, clear the local grocer, and sell it on the street or hoard like a lunatic. **** Yes, my intelligent friend, because that would not attract any sort of attention to you, and because in my supposed economic system there are no laws against tax evasion, right? LOL **** Thus I'm tax evading by not saving and using important goods that other people need uselessly to fund my own self interest. I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again: I believe people are born to be 'good', interpret that as you will, but no one and i mean NO ONE will pass up the opportunity to be rich and not have to really do anything to get it. If you have flooding immigration like you propose, then the cost of living would skyrocket and money would become scarce and more and more meaningless as people have to scavenge and barter for those who were lucky enough to come across the limited food and gasoline and other necessary supplies. **** Wow. You most certainly read very much of my post, didn't you? THE TREND THROUGH, I.E. THE INDUSTRIAL/ECONOMIC CAPACITY of the economy would be THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE GOVERNMENT to increase, with the IMMIGRANT LABOR CONSTANTLY WORKING TO INCREASE THIS EVEN FURTHER. I already explained how there would be no inflation as the amount of G&S produced would constantly increase as the government pushed the trend growth up. **** You'd be creating an inadvertent oligarchy. And that kind of foils your plan for government ownership of businesses and financing of projects and such by printing money because it becomes pointless; people will want food, not untaxed, worthless money.
Secondly, the economic system. We've been over the corporate system where you want several companies to oversee key sectors that are basically government owned but privately operated with a socialistic profit-sharing as well as loss-sharing program. The immediate problem is corruption. No way some doof is going to actually follow rules and regulations when there is a set amount of companies and sectors allowed to exist. **** There is not a set amount of companies/sectors allowed to exist. There are just some companies that are privately managed, shares being owned by the state, that operate in a normal economy. And corruption? What the hell's the difference in between a normal company, and a privately managed company that has its share owned by the state, with the state not being allowed to intervene unless there are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE BUSINESS WOULD BE EXACTLY AS A NORMAL BUSINESS; THERE IS CORRUPTION ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE. **** They'll conglomerate and screw everyone. That said, the workers for the particular companies may benefit for a short time from the profit at the expense of those not working in those sectors, but in the long run anyway they'll be replaced with robots or who cares what as long as they don't have to share their money. We don't want to do that. with everything else going on as well, it would create massive inflation on top of inflation as these sectors rebel and monopolize and what happens when these lunatics take control of the limited food stores? **** I won't even bother. It's been explained before in my post. **** Somalia. Look up the American involvement in the 1990's in Somalia where we had to go bail out the failed government and starving people who were under the oligarchy of gangs and crazies who had all the food, oil, and foreign money.
Don't be like Somalia.
Get DirecTV.


Lol... 'intelligent person'.

Sorry for being as hostile, but I DO NOT take kindly to people who start criticizing rather heavily a suggestion without properly reading the actual suggestion. I haven't the slightest hate for people criticizing me/my ideas, but when they don't even try to actually read the WRITTEN suggestion, it is just plain annoying. My bad.


Helsworth Wrote:
Ok, fast read through those proposals, and right off the bat I don't like them. I wouldn't want to pay a super excise on dildos, strap-ons, external HDDs, video-games, musical instruments, etc. And high consumption taxes just encourage the shadow economy.

Second, I don't want government to tax savings, aka bank deposits. **** I made sure to make it more than clear in the initial post, but I take it that you really did just skim read it. The government WOULD NOT, IN ANY WAY tax the ALREADY SAVED MONEY in the bank accounts; only imposes a 10% tax on ANY FURTHER INCOME if one has saved up $1mil CASH. I FAILED TO STATE that there would be NO CASH in the economy; only electronic ways of paying would be available. That was an oversight in my original post **** Cause it can't keep tabs on liquidity anyway; it can't send inspectors to my house and look under my mattress. And if it can, then that's a country I wouldn't want to be in. So by taxing deposits, that makes people get their money out of the banking system and encourages them to hoard.

Third, why not just have a progressive tier wealth tax WITHOUT taxing income (aka punishing labor)?

**** This is the idea! It's not supposed to be punishing labor at all! Only the HOARDING OF MONEY is supposed to be punished! With the consumer tax, the only real place all that money (which, if hoarded, would lead to an increase in taxes) to go would be INVESTING. Please, tell me if you do actually know anyone with anywhere close to $2million CASH saved up! I chose these numbers especially because it would not punish the labor of the VAST majority of the population, while not allowing richer people to HOARD. Not only that, but it would also cause people, rich or not, to avoid HOARDING and simply INVEST it back into the economy! Regardless, it's barely even punishing richer people's labor. A rich person could INDEFINETLY KEEP HIS INCOME TAX on ZERO % as long as he DOES NOT HOARD money! If he invests the money, not only does he not waste any of his money (which would have otherwise been saved up in a bank account) but has a return on him. The only real way for someone to become a multi millionaire WITHOUT incurring significant income taxes, would be for them to INVEST, and not just save up or hoard!! ****

No minimum wage and no working hour regulation is akin to a return to feudalism; and I definitely don't want such a thing.

That is fair enough. However, I do hate how there are huge barriers in many economies to the mobility and flexibility of labor. Perhaps my advocating for no real regulations was a tad bit extreme.

Your stance on QE shows that you don't understand what QE is about. QE is about giving investor confidence and inflating assets prices. Under QE, the CB is unprinting money and printing it in a different form. QE isn't money printing (not helicopter drop, that's fiscal policy) and it isn't inflationary. Monetary policy is all about balancing the interests of lenders and debtors. That's why lenders favor deflation and debtors favor inflation. And since that the middle class and the poor are usually the ones with debts to pay - because the system forces them to go into debt, since government is not helping them enough... I favor low inflation during deleveraging periods rather than low deflation - because the latter increases the value (burden) of the debt. And I favor low deflation during leveraging periods in order to decrease the rate at which private debt levels rise.

**** Indeed, my idea of an economy would have continuous low inflation rates, given the very heavy emphasis on trend growth, which inherently tends to greatly lower chances of high inflation. Regardless, given the theory's inherent emphasis on not spending on consumption, but rather on investing (which is akin to saving, but in a much more beneficial way to the economy) debt should not be too much of a problem for the more common folk. I suppose I do not know the correct use of QE then. I expected that QE would simply be the creation (yeah, not printing) of money to meet a country's debts without creating more government debt. And for fiscal policy to be the creation of money to fund certain expenditures that the government might have. ****

As for trade, you wouldn't have to worry about capital flight - because the government, under your proposals, is doing pretty much all of the investment. Since you're against exporting raw materials, then I imagine you'd focus on manufactured goods. Well, you're going to have to compete with countries who are traditional powerhouses in this business - hence, why you;d like to turn your country into a sweatshop with no working hour regulations and no minimum wage. **** Indeed, I'd want the country to be very focused on providing businesses with a good competitive edge; my exact wishes would not be to create a sweatshop nation, but rather a nation which gives people two options: study your ass off and/or acquire good/useful skills, or work in a sweatshop. Reason for the large emphasis on a rather taxing educational system. Namely, people would be very educated, and given the LOW UNEMPLOYMENT ensured by the state's continuous investment into TREND GROWTH, with immigration being opened up only when the unemployment rate is rather DANGEROUSLY LOW, would ensure that companies would actually have to compete one against another for employees. Likewise, immigrants might fill the 'sweatshop' jobs while their children (hopefully) study hard and go on to become skilled and educated. Likewise, I think I haven't stated that there would be government subsidized EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES for adults as well. I might want to reconsider the no minimum wage/working conditions regulation thing... but I still want companies to somehow have a competitive advantage. ****

As for state owned assets with profit-oriented management; that's fine. Though, if we're talking about water and electricity, I'd rather have the national government selling it to households and firms AT COST. The potential losses incurred by these state owned companies can be covered from the national budget via deficit spending - no need to increase taxes or cut spending. **** Such more sensitive and crucial parts of the economy would indeed be supplied for ENTIRELY by the state, and, indeed, at a cost. Privately managed and what not, with the central government setting price ceilings as it would on normal privately owned companies. The large monopoly would be focused on increasing efficiency and lowering production costs, not necessarily lowering its prices for the consumers. The business plan and the objectives of the monopoly would be just that. If a manager does meet his department's target (whether he is the CEO or some lowly manager), he receives a share in the profits of the department/entire company, while he may get fired and/or penalized for not doing so. I would like some help with ideas on this one.

It's like with the privatization of notary business in Romania. Before that, government provided the service at cost. Now, since it's privatized, the notaries make HUGE profits out of what? Reading some documents and applying a fucking seal. Privatizing government bureaucracy and asking huge sums of money in return for something the citizen is NOT responsible for. If ever a thing was theft, THAT IS IT! Well said. Even though I do seem to have a serious issue with having the economy being state managed in one way or another (state capitalism all the way!) I am however afraid of the inefficiencies that might arise from that, reason why I'd want the government agencies to be, somehow, run in a private manner, with emphasis on profit making, with the profits being used by the local government (as you suggested) to be returned in one way or another to the populace.

In short, I don't agree with the command-exploitation policies you've outlined here. And I'll never agree to neoliberal policy prescriptions.


I finished replying to your entire post. Please, if you could, try and perhaps try make some sort of compromise in between my ingrained idea that the government must intervene (albeit in an efficient and profit oriented way) and neo liberal ideas and your more fair ideas. What would a compromise be?

Likewise, gov ownership of companies would not be for 'revenue' reasons. It would allow the government to intervene in the
economy more easily with the use of the said companies as well, and force the company to do certain things which are deemed
appropriate by a special commision of the top economists. Why not just allow the commision to intervene in any private
company, and not have the government to own privately managed companies? Well, because it would anger the private owners of the company's shares. If the shares are owned by the government, there would be no one to anger, and there would be NO destruciton of the confidence in the economy, as the [/color]government would not just force any privately owned corporation to do what its special commision of economists would want, but only just already state owned ones.


The most OP books: http://serbanvcenache.blogspot.ro/2014/0...-live.html

This post was last modified: 05.12.2014 20:41 by CaiusFilimonG.

05.12.2014 17:15
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,856
Words count: 1,597,963
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #8
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

If you want the central government to lay out the goals for those publicly run assets, then you don't need private management for them. There's no need to keep them as autonomous state-owned enterprises if you want the central government to intervene. Management can be chosen in part by the unions in part by the prime-minister. Or just the latter if you want to be more authoritarian.
I've nothing against private or state owned companies; if it's the latter case, the profit orientated approach serves the interests of local governments (who are indeed, unlike the central government, revenue constrained in their spending). That's why I argued for these state companies to offer their services at cost. If they are obtaining profits, they should be pocketed by the local authorities. If they're producing profits for the central government - those profits should be redistributed somewhere else. Either to the workers or sent for other projects within the private economy; they should not leave the nongovernment sector as a positive balance in the government's account.
For any given size government, there's a proper marginal tax rate to sustain a certain value for the currency. For AD shocks up or down, the automatic fiscal stabilizers keep that from happening - correcting the system counter-cyclically. As for output, it needs to be elastic enough in order to adjust quickly in order that seasonal price changes remain seasonal and not turn into high inflation.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 05.12.2014 19:00 by Helsworth.

05.12.2014 17:55
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #9
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

CaiusFilimonG Wrote:
appropriate by a special commision of the top economists.

I would like to chirp in regarding this point.

You do realize that "top economists" includes guys like Peter Schiff, right? They will practically ruin your economy and you would be paying them to do it.

05.12.2014 19:58
Quote this message in a reply
CaiusFilimonG
Member
*


Posts: 72
Words count: 16,881
Group: Basic
Joined: Jul2014
Status: Offline
Reputation: 1
Experience: 93
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #10
RE: Caius Filimon Gabriel Economics

Helsworth Wrote:
If you want the central government to lay out the goals for those publicly run assets, then you don't need private management for them. There's no need to keep them as autonomous state-owned enterprises if you want the central government to intervene. Management can be chosen in part by the unions in part by the prime-minister. Or just the latter if you want to be more authoritarian.
I've nothing against private or state owned companies; if it's the latter case, the profit orientated approach serves the interests of local governments (who are indeed, unlike the central government, revenue constrained in their spending). That's why I argued for these state companies to offer their services at cost. If they are obtaining profits, they should be pocketed by the local authorities. If they're producing profits for the central government - those profits should be redistributed somewhere else. Either to the workers or sent for other projects within the private economy; they should not leave the nongovernment sector as a positive balance in the government's account.
For any given size government, there's a proper marginal tax rate to sustain a certain value for the currency. For AD shocks up or down, the automatic fiscal stabilizers keep that from happening - correcting the system counter-cyclically. As for output, it needs to be elastic enough in order to adjust quickly in order that seasonal price changes remain seasonal and not turn into high inflation.


I do not wish for the government to have direct control over the state owned companies; just for the government to own the shares to be able to intervene if need be. Namely, mostly only in more extraordinary cases, just so that the government won't have to force private companies to do something that would be despised by that company's shareholders. And, yes, the money being help onto by the local government would be a very good idea. That would be a nice addition to the 'theory', thank you!


Rising Phoenix Wrote:

CaiusFilimonG Wrote:
appropriate by a special commision of the top economists.

I would like to chirp in regarding this point.

You do realize that "top economists" includes guys like Peter Schiff, right? They will practically ruin your economy and you would be paying them to do it.


A very fair point; that idea would still need some ironing out. Supposedly, there would be some regulation and guiding rules that would emulate my own beliefs, with any serious wiggle room being available only in really extraordinary cases.


I finished replying to your entire post, Helsworth. Please, if you could, try and perhaps try make some sort of compromise in between my ingrained idea that the government must intervene (albeit in an efficient and profit oriented way) and neo liberal ideas and your more fair ideas. What would a compromise be?


The most OP books: http://serbanvcenache.blogspot.ro/2014/0...-live.html
05.12.2014 20:03
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Gazprom School of Economics - Miller Hall of Macroeconomics Alexei B.Miller 213 45,294 15.06.2019 14:00
Last Post: Alexei B.Miller
  Economics is not a real science (xpost r/badphilosophy) gamora77 3 380 20.03.2019 01:42
Last Post: MrProper
  An Argument against Capitalist Economics ClassyCommunist 10 1,809 14.02.2017 18:30
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  What is your opinion of the economics academia? Ajay Alcos 2 922 13.02.2017 22:08
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  J is for Junk economics. Michael Hudson. Free market = Freedom from rent seekers Helsworth 1 851 22.11.2016 17:35
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Methods for teaching simple economics Ajay Alcos 2 906 07.03.2016 17:47
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  Ibn Khaldun, pure awesome 14th century economics Helsworth 1 926 13.01.2016 07:37
Last Post: Ajay Alcos
  From Kenneth Boulding's Economics of Peace 1945 Helsworth 0 930 10.05.2015 12:53
Last Post: Helsworth
  Steve Keen, The Dodgy Dynamics of Economics Helsworth 0 1,049 15.06.2014 15:43
Last Post: Helsworth
  Debunking Austrian economics 101, by Lord Keynes Helsworth 0 2,197 31.05.2014 19:38
Last Post: Helsworth

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: