Private charity would be far less crowded out and would become more effective, though that's the obvious answer. Mutual aid associations would become common if certain regulations tied to welfare (especially Medicare and the healthcare sector in general) were removed, and would generally be far more capable of providing assistance than the government. Prices in general would tend to either stay steady or drop over time, making things more affordable. The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise, and would have more opportunities to boot. Getting a job would be significantly more straightforward, and unemployment would be quite a bit lower.
This contains alot of assertions. Would private charities become more effective? That would require more people to pay into them (would they?), which would remove incentive for investment. "far more capable of providing assistance than the government" Why? The governmnent makes far more money much more reliably and has far more infestructure in place, it would seem they are much more capable.
I agree that American healthcare needs reform, but not in that direction. Many first world countries have larger and more efficient government health care programs (eg NHS) and most have had them more several decades and have managed to support them through economic booms and busts.
"The end of the minimum wage would mean most would
start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise" Would they end up making more? Would this apply to
everyone or would there be significant chunks of the populace working for $2 an hour, relying on the unpredictable availability of charity?
It's also worth noting that quite often the people who are at the top brackets don't necessarily make that much money in the first place, whereas those who aren't can still be absurdly rich. For example, the established rich (the kind who would actually be buying their third summer home) would have most of their wealth in assets, not income, and would pay quite a bit less in income tax regardless of what the highest brackets paid. Inversely, someone who actually works their ass off to make their money, or actively runs an innovative business, gets taxed quite a bit more.
Most people in the top bracket
are earning that much, that is why they are in the top bracket (the top bracket is 388,351, which is alot of money). It is true though that the absurdly rich are undertaxed, but this could be solved by
increasing taxes (for example tax extra house purchases, or even some sort of Robin Hood tax).
This is not a problem solved by decreasing taxes, it is solved by fixing regression in the tax system and making it more actually-progressive.
Science certainly is an investment, but the government has a tendency to crowd out the competition, and its most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth (eg. most of the innovations coming out of the DoD).
There was nothing stopping any private company from researching an internet-like infestructure. Infact there is little crowding out (except in regards to understandably restricted things like nuclear weapons etc). Alot of research is contracted out to universities/private companies as it is anyway.
"most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth", Is this an opinion?
Capital Gains tax cuts in particular incentivize investment, which leads to saving, which leads to sustainable production, which strengthens the economy in general. This is over a long term, but it certainly helps.
My diagram has showen virtually no correlation between Capital Gains tax. It is understandable that a ridiculous level of tax would hurt incentives, but the low correlation would suggest that the tax is already so low that it is having virtually no effect.
With the exception of Germany, I actually can't think of any European countries that have sustained their government programs without causing huge economic imbalances (France), running up massive debt (Italy, Spain, the UK, etc), or recession followed by major reforms (Sweden). Even Germany's debt has shot up rather dramatically over the years, and they're easily the strongest economy in Europe.
That is because it is a global recession. I don't see how being closer to a laissez-faire capitalism system would prevent this from happening (especially given that most of the fault is placed on private investors). America's huge debt and its less socialist/interventive government policies (as opposed to most of europe) do not seem to have helped.
This recession is not the indicator that government intervention/tax is unsustainable (These happen from time to time, plus economic crises are an expected part of capitalism). I woudn't be agains't a flexable policy though, one that can adjust depending on the economic situation etc. But permanently ending some of these things does not seem necessary.
Also, a lot of American welfare is distinctly different from European welfare. For example, Medicare and Medicaid, taking up a gigantic portion of US spending, were originally attempts by the US government to make healthcare more affordable to the groups they're aimed at, and we can see today how successful THAT was. Most European countries don't have such a program at all for rather obvious reasons. The other major expensive American welfare project is Social Security, which European countries DO have in the form of pensions. However, aforementioned pensions are generally kept afloat by raising the age limit at which they can be received or reducing payouts, in short, screwing over the elderly who paid into them.
I agree that they (Medicare and Medicaid) are not very sucessful. They cost alot and are not very effective. Alot of Eurpoean countries have some form of socialized medicine (the biggest example being the UK's NHS) and are for the most part not in need of these programs (at least not near the same level as the US). I would think that reforms towards something like this would be capable of providing more efficient health care to the poor, and (hopefully) away from facelifts and other inefficient wastes-of-money the private sector has created.
The raising age limit is to coincide with the increasing age that people work upto as well as the increasing life expectancy. Something will probably have to be done, mind you, do deal with the aging baby boomers.
Most currencies would end up being backed by different things, but I'd imagine a lot would just revert to a gold standard of some kind. In turn, conversion would be simple, straightforward, and rejection of currency unlikely. If one of the major producers began cutting its reserves back too much, or inflating heavily, pulling out would be fairly simple and the overall effects on the economy wouldn't be as harsh. On the other hand, when the Fed does such things, Americans are basically stuck with the consequences of whatever boneheaded policy they implement without many alternatives.
Currencies backed by the gold standard is unreliable, there is a reason why most countries abandoned it (Great Depression). To transfer from one currency to anoter still requires aquisition of the physical currency, it would become messy dealing with dand aquiring these currencies, regardless of being backed by gold.
Pulling out would not at all be fairly simple, when a company has large stores of cash of a certain type (eg a bank), swapping that around for another currency would be quite a complex process. Ontop of that now the people who go to purchase/withdraw now have to work with different currencies.
Now people won't be stuck with the "consequences of whatever boneheaded policy" private money producers make (Because there is nothing stopping them from being as bad as the government).
As I said, there are reasons most economicists do not support it.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 770826 times)