If online discourse is not shaped by the EU or European governments, it will be shaped by even less trustworthy entities. It will be shaped by US, China and Russia based organizations, and they will tear the EU apart from multiple directions. The EU needs this if it's to stay alive, even with the risks involved. We just need to be extremely careful that we don't let undemocratic parties get control of this system. That will be easier if we have better control over how much disinformation other powers are able to feed us.
It does, at least according to the statistics and research we have. Labor share of income has been decreasing during the last few decades. The reason is also simple: without strong interference from governments, markets have a tendency to concentrate and form monopolies. Winners are rewarded with more advantages over their competitors, and over time one or two winners will emerge and get large enough that it's near impossible to compete with them, even if the competitors can resist the urge to get rich quick by selling the business to the dominant players.
Capital also has a much easier time organizing politically than the poor masses, so over time the government will also introduce policies that benefit capital over labor, as we can very clearly see.
They boost the economy if there exist enough mechanisms that spread the generated gains to everyone. Those mechanisms used to be unions, political power of the working class and the demand for labor. The first two are close to nonexistant now, and the third one is being eroded at an increasing speed. The closer to human abilities automation gets, the less room there is for new human jobs to be created. At some point any new job invented can also be done by an AI, and at that point productivity gains have no mechanism with which to spread into the economy. At that point the owners of the machines will get everything they want from them and they'll have no need to pay other humans anything.
I think it's the lack a of deeper meaning in the things we do have to do in this system. We're just cogs in a large machine that creates more and more wealth, but after you have enough to live a comfortable life that is no longer enough to make you care. There's no more purpose to it. Yet the pursuit of wealth is the only goal our economic system, and increasingly our culture as well, provides. Any other goal gets trampled under the herd of organizations seeking wealth for the purpose of making more wealth.
Tax wealth. I know that's a very hard thing to do due to the mobility and political power of capital, but we need international co-operation and just do it. That's where all the money is and where it's going at an accelerating rate.
The way this tends to turn out is that the type of assets accessible to younger/working people is taxed and the type of assets held by older/non-working people is not.
E.g. look at Ireland. Ireland has a de-facto wealth tax ("deemed disposal" - taxing the unrealized gains) on ETFs starting at the first euro, which makes investing basically pointless. Meanwhile it also has one of the lower tax levels on property in the EU.
Yes, it needs to be done in a fair manner. France used to have a tax (Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune) which was anybody with more than X millions of assets had to pay 75% of income tax. (I believe it was 10 millions, but I could be wrong) It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't a bad idea. IIRC it was slashed by Sarkozy right before the 2008 crisis as part of his campaign promises, and he just kept going with his tax cuts on the wealthy after 2008.
Another thing could be multipliers on property tax. For example, you would pay 0.75× of the property tax on your primary residence, 1.5× the property tax of your secondary residence, and start going exponentially on third, fourth, ... residence. Of course, there would be loopholes (like owning properties through companies), and these loopholes would need to be closed.
You could also tax buy-backs and dividends. (If a company buy their own shares, they have to pay a 50% tax on it)
There are a lot of possible implementations that could add up to each other. It's a fallacy to just point at the bad ones and say "look it doesn't work!"
The main issue is that there has been a transfer of global share income from labour to capital in the last 50 years. However we expect to pay for pensions just by taxing labour. It doesn't matter if there are less young people, because (as shown by GDP growth) they are producing more overall, but misinformed politicians use this argument because they don't understand that these folks didn't profit from the increase in productivity. We need to fairly take a share from this productivity increase and distribute it as pensions. The goal is to pay for what we promised, while relieving burden on young people.
Why would you limit to only billionaires, and why would you compare it to all spend? Try funding pensions and healthcare by taxing the wealth of the top 0.5% and it doesn't sound so impossible.
A realistic wealth tax probably caps out and around 2%, remembering that the net worth of very rich people is generally not liquid and can be difficult to mark to market. Any higher rate risks forcing the rich to have an asset fire sale, which liquidates productive assets and isn't really good for anybody. At six to seven percent you would force them to be entirely liquid and would begin to shrink their wealth, killing off the tax base in a few generations. Even this is absurdly optimistic since a globally standardized wealth tax is a pipe dream and without it you get capital flight as a result of any wealth tax at all, but let's ignore that.
To steelman this as much as possible let's say you can charge 6%. The top 0.5% are worth $30-$40 trillion in the U.S. (which is just an easy example because the statistics are available) which gives you a probably unrealistically high max annual tax revenue of $2.4 trillion. Social Security and Medicare in their current form cost $1.35 trillion a year; Medicare for All would double to triple that or more, depending on what estimate you believe.
Europeans pay for their social safety nets with very broad taxation while America instead charges negative income tax (after credits) to the bottom 60 percent of the population (even after inflation, excise taxes, state tax, payroll tax and tariffs the total tax burden is pretty slim at the bottom end by European standards). There doesn't seem to be a mathematically feasible way to give benefits to the working class that the working class doesn't pay for.
You're probably right, though U.S healthcare costs per capita are much higher than they need to be, and would be much lower in a "proper" single payer system like in Europe. In any case, a wealth tax would still help a lot with being able to fund these programs. Yes, the working class does have to pay as well, but it'd be much less if there were a reasonable wealth tax.
But yes, global co-operation to enable a large enough tax on wealth is not going to happen any time soon. A more likely scenario is that as automation develops and as the share of income that capital gets grows, the working class will end up in a position bad enough that capitalism will collapse and be replaced with something else. Hopefully with something better, but could also be worse.
And in Sweden, another "nordic socialist country", there's no tax on property nor inheritance, as well as very low taxes on invested capital. There are about 1.5x more USD-billionaires per capita in Sweden than in the US. I think there's room for some more taxes.
"Democratic Socialists" in America aren't socialists. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate seizing the means of production. You can argue we use it wrong, but we can argue it's our language and we evolved it.
But I don't think even all the nominally socialist parties in Europe are really socialist either.
Come on, the U.S is devolving into a fascist dictatorship as we speak, mostly due to capitalism and the worship of wealth. And for as long as capitalism remains, it will only get worse and worse, because capitalism is deeply flawed in that it has exponential power concentration built it. Monopolies form and rent seeking wealth siphons the wealth from the working people to the top. Breaking large companies would help, but it's like fighting a fire with buckets of water, eventually concentrating capital corrupts the regulators and this happens. If you can't see the connection between what's happening and capitalism, you really should think about it more objectively.
People are also happier in most European countries than they are in the US, because the constant competition for wealth and using wealth as the measure of what everyone is worth is not good for mental health and does not lead to a peaceful society, but one where people are set against each other. Europe has problems, but fixing them with capitalism is not going to lead to better lives for most people.
The wealth should be going to the people who create it, which is the people who do the work and the customers that use the product. The only reason owners get to take a part of it is the power that ownership of capital gives them. Using power to take what others create is quite close to stealing. It's no different from some feudal lord taking what his peasants create. Legal within our system, but that doesn't mean they deserve it.
We've caused a mass extinction, we're warming the planet at a dangerous rate, we've covered it with harmful long lasting chemicals that are now in the bloodstreams of most living things, we've damaged the mental health of youth with social media, etc. All this because we don't test and think about the consequences broadly enough, the most important (if not the only) question we ask being "will this be profitable for the owners?".
If one of the things I mentioned doesn't cause our extinction, it's only a matter of time until one of our inventions does, if we don't consider the effects broadly enough before putting it in production at a large scale.
I don't think regulations are enough. They're just a band-aid on the gaping wound that is a capitalist, market based economy. No matter what regulations you make, some companies and individuals become winners and over time will grow rich enough to influence the government and the regulations. We need a better economic system, one that does not have these problems built in.
Sure, but you can't ignore the negative sides like environmental destruction and wealth and power concentration. Just because we haven't yet invented a system that produces a good standard of living without these negative side effects doesn't mean it can't be done. But we aren't even trying, because the ones benefiting from this system the most, and have the most power, have no incentive to do so.
Political corruption is a consequence of capitalism. Taking over the political system provides a huge competitive advantage, so any entity rich enough to influence it has an incentive to do so in an competition based economy that incentivizes growth.
When did Political corruption not exist? In what system in history did the people in power have so few rotten apples that corruption was an anomally?
Blaming corruption on capitalism is silly. As long has worldhas resources, people want control of reasources, and bad actors will do bad actors thingies.
You're right, political corruption is a problem in other systems as well, not just capitalism. I guess it would be more accurate to say that power concentration causes political corruption. We should try to figure out if it's possible to manage the economy in a way that limits the amount of power any individual can have to such an extent that corruption would be impossible.
That's why we need new ways to make decisions using direct democracy. Any system that delegates decision making to an individual or small group is vulnerable to corruption. Everyone should participate in decision-making.
"Everyone" is for lack of a better word, stupid, and routinely votes against their own interests, and don't know what they actually want. Just ask Americans.
I agree, and that's why the decision-making process should be more complex than just a simple vote. It should be a process where everyone participating is forced to consider the issue from all sides.
I don't think there is exists a magical political system that we set up and it magically protects us from corruption. Forever. Just like any system (like surviving in an otherwise hostile nature) it needs maintenance. Maintenance in a political or any social structure is getting off your bottom and imposing some "reward" signal on the system.
Corruption mainly exists because people have low standards for enforcing eradication of it. This is observable in the smallest levels. In countries where corruption is deeply engraved, even university student groups will be corrupted. Elected officials of societies of any size will be prone to put their personal interests in front of the groups' and will appoint or employ friends instead of randomers based on some quality metrics. The question is what are the other people willing to do? Is anyone willing to call them out? Is anyone willing to instead put on the job themselves and do it right (which can be demanding)?
The real question is how far are the individuals willing to go and how much discomfort are they willing to embrace to impose their requirements, needs, moral expectations on the political leader? The outcomes of many situations you face in society (should that be a salary negotiation or someone trying to rip you off in a shop) depend on how much sacrifice (e.g. discomfort) you are willing to take on to get out as a "winner" (or at least non-loser) of the situation? Are you willing to quit your job if you cannot get what you want? Are you going to argue with the person trying to rip you off? Are you willing to go to a lawyer and sue them and take a long legal battle?
If people keep choosing the easier way, there will always be people taking advantage of that. Sure, we have laws but laws also need maintenance and anyone wielding power needs active check! It doesn't just magically happen but the force that can keep it in check is every individual in the system. Technological advances and societal changes always lead to new ideas how to rip others off. What we would need is to truly punish the people trying to take advantage of such situations: no longer do business with them, ask others to boycott such behaviour (and don't vote for dickheads!, etc.) -- even in the smallest friends group such an issue could arise.
The question is: how much are people willing to sacrifice on a daily basis to put pressure on corrupt people? There is no magic here, just the same bare evolutionary forces in place for the past 100,000 years of humankind.
(Just think about it: even in rule of law, the ultimate way of enforcing someone to obey the rules is by pure physical force. If someone doesn't listen, ever, he will be picked up by other people and forced into a physical box and won't be allowed to leave. And I don't expect that to ever change, regardless of the political system. Similarly, we need to keep up an army at all times. If you simply go hard pacifist, someone will take advantage of that... Evolution. )
Democracy is an active game to be played and not just every 4 years. In society, people's everyday choices and standards are the "natural forces of evolution".
Capitalism is a good economic engine. Now put that engine in a car without steering wheel nor brakes and feed the engine with the thickest and ever-thickening pipe from the gas tank you can imagine, and you get something like USA.
But most of the world doesn't work like that. Countries like China and Russia have dictators that steer the car. Mexico have gangs and mafia. European countries have parliamentary democracies and "commie journalists" that do their job and reign political and corporate corruption--sometimes over-eagerly--and unions. In many of those places, wealth equals material well-being but not overt political power. In fact, wealth often employs stealth to avoid becoming a target.
USA is not trying to change things because people are numbed down[^1]. Legally speaking, there is nothing preventing that country from having a socialist party win control of the government with popular support and enact sweeping legislation to overcome economic inequality somewhat. Not socialist, but that degree of unthinkable was done by Roosevelt before and with the bare minimum of popular support.
[^1]: And, I'm not saying that's a small problem. It is not, and the capitalism of instant gratification entertainment is entirely responsible for this outcome. But the culprit is not capitalism at large. IMO, the peculiarities of American culture are, to a large extent, a historic accident.
You can't really separate wealth and power, they're pretty much the same thing. The process that is going on in the US is also happening in Europe, just at a slower pace. Media is consolidating in the hands of the wealthy, unions are being attacked and are slowly losing their power, etc. You can temporarily reverse the process by having someone steer the car into some other direction for a while, but wealth/power concentration is an unavoidable part of free market capitalism, so the problem will never go away completely. Eventually capital accumulates again, and will corrupt the institutions meant to control it.
A smart dictator is probably harder to corrupt, but they die and then if you get unlucky with the next dictator the car will crash and burn.
Actually, the system that produced the greatest standard of living increase in human history is whatever Communist China's been doing for the last century.
Mao and communism brought famine and death to millions.
The move from that to "capitilism with Chinese characteristics" is what has brought about the greatest standard of living increase in human history.
What they're doing now is a mix of socialism, capitilism and CPP dominance. I'm not an American, but I understand FDR wielded socialism too, and that really catapulted the US towards its golden era.
Chinese do capitalism better than anyone else. Chinese companies ruthlessly compete within China to destroy their competition. Their firms barely have profits because everyone is competing so hard against others. Whereas US/EU is full of rent seeking monopolies that used regulatory capture to destroy competition.
We haven't really been trying to find such a system. The technological progress that we've had since the last attempts at a different kind of a system has been huge, so what was once impossible might now be possible if we put some effort into it.
There is no system that fulfills your requirements.
It is even easy to explain why: Humans are part of all the moving pieces in such a system and they will always subvert it to their own agenda, no matter what rules you put into place. The more complex your rule set, the easier it is to break.
Look at games, can be a card game, a board game, some computer game. There is a fixed set of rules, and still humans try to cheat. We are not even talking adults here, you see this with kids already. Now with games there is either other players calling that out or you have a computer not allowing to cheat (maybe). Now imagine everyone could call someone else a cheater and stop them from doing something. This in itself is going to be misused. Humans will subvert systems.
So the only working system will be one with a non-human incorruptible game master, so to speak. Not going to happen.
With that out of the way, we certainly can ask the question: What is the next best thing to that? I have no answer to that, though.
Cheating happens in competition based systems. No one cheats in games where the point is to co-operate to achieve some common goal. We should aim to have a system based on recognizing those common goals and enabling large scale co-operation to achieve them.
all systems are competitive, if the system involves humans - after all, even in a constrained environment like academia, where research is cooperative, the competition for recognition is still strong. This includes the order of the authorship presented in the paper.
What you're asking for, regarding cooperation to achieve common goals, is altruism. This does not exist in human nature.
Academia is competitive because it's designed to be competitive. If things like funding, recognition and opportunities go to "winners", people will try to win. It's possible to design systems that do not force people to compete. For example you could take away the names from papers and assign funding randomly/semi-randomly and the competition would end. Then add some form of retroactive funding (or other kinds of rewards) that's awarded to research that has produced useful results, and you'll get your incentive to do good research without the need for competition.
It's harder to design systems that avoid competitive behavior, but I don't think it's impossible. And of course competition is not all bad, it's a good tool when used carefully. But it's way too much when most of our systems are based on it.
Any form of reward leads to competitiveness. In research, it's the funding, and the credit/accolades. In business, it's the money.
Any sort of scheme to try allocate the funding leads to competition for said funding!
In other words, in order to remove all competition in the system, you need unlimited funding. Even randomly allocating funding is insufficient, as it simply means you're competing on luck (for example, by trying to acquire more slots in the lottery).
> harder to avoid competitive behavior, but I don't think it's impossible.
Which i think is not true - it is in fact, impossible, unless you add in the condition that there's unlimited 'resources' (after all, there's competition for resources while it is limited).
This has been proven over and over not to work. Humans are inherently competitive, and so corruption ALWAYS takes over.
Even if you make everything and everyone equal, they eventually get bored and start trying to one-up each other and push the limits of what's allowed, which is just another way to say corruption.
Small government, big government, socialism, communism, capitalism, everything the world has tried has ended in mass corruption.
> It's possible to design systems that do not force people to compete
I have yet to see any real evidence of this working on a societal level.
> What is the next best thing to that? I have no answer to that, though.
i argue that what we have today is the so called next best thing - free market capitalism, with a good dose of democracy and strong gov't regulations (but not overbearing).
I assume they are saying that in practice, if wealth gives one influence (if one lives in capitalism), one will use that influence to make one's market less free to one's benefit.
reply