Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Someone tell warpus he still has me on ignore for saying that the government should reduce institutional racism instead of policing interpersonal racism. He can't see my quote and thinks you're responding to him.
[RD] How I would reform the US welfare system
- Thread starter Azem.Ocram
- Start date
-
- Tags
- us politics
It destroys demand for dollars, that's for sure. I guess you could do it if they were backed by something hard but transient that people actually valued.
The idea of directly destroying registered currency is interesting to me, since it tests the modern ability of the State to actually control a currency and not just control it due to momentum from a previous era.
The idea of directly destroying registered currency is interesting to me, since it tests the modern ability of the State to actually control a currency and not just control it due to momentum from a previous era.
warpus
In pork I trust
I don't think you will see the USD going away. IMO it might just eventually end up being backed by various other type of assets, the way it used to be backed by gold. That way you'll end up with a central banking authority that has some control over the economy, but also a decentralized set of assets integrated into the economy.
If you consider "value" to be "what somebody is willing to pay for something", then something like shiba inu coin has value even though that seems silly
I know other people disagree with my emphasis, but right now dollars are backed by debt. So, they're valued more highly than whatever you lose if you default on the loan.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Ok play it off like you were, then. Warpus literally thought you were telling him you thought it was his idea...
My low self-esteem forces me to validate all feedback, even if it was accidental!
What is the goal of all these suggested changes? What are the outcomes you all want?
Dollars have value to those who do not owe money. In the end of the day they are backed by the state monopoly on violence, and its willingness to use it against you if you do not get dollars and give them to the state.
For me the core goal is ensuring everyone has food, shelter, medical care and education.
Lexicus
Deity
Private debts are enforced by __________
I know that people disagree on my emphasis, but yeah, dollars have value to those who don't owe. And (I daresay) within that cohort a lot of their value is due to other psychological factors than can be justified under any fiat theory. Some people play boardgames to win and some play for fun. Some want to win so badly that they'll wreck the fun of the evening.
Sure, some demand for dollars is the State forbidding barter-without-taxation, but for most practical purposes the state-backing of the dollar creates utility and not obligation (most of us don't scramble for dollars at tax-time, if anything we get refunds). We don't really live in a world where we owe the State money before we earn it, except for a few specific (minor) cases. But the fact that the bank will take my truck if I don't hustle for dollars means that I'll hustle for dollars. And, even weirder, I'll hustle for dollars just to retain my ability to take on debt through credit ratings.
At the start of the taxation year, I could barter for food and I don't owe any money for next year's taxes yet. But legal tender is the cheapest thing I can acquire to collapse my mortgage payment with any negotiation.
Holodecks and replicators for all. That's my actual longterm goal. Everything has to keep that endgame.
Last edited:
Certainly food (or its surrogate, money) can be easily provided. Medical care in the west is part of the culture and only needs to made accessible, very doable. The US Medicare system works pretty well. Housing is a problem. Once built, it needs ongoing upkeep that is expensive and variable by structure and location. At the two extremes you have various housing "Projects" that become terrible ghettos and the Surfside collapse in Florida. You cannot solve housing problems until you resolve the ongoing maintenance issue. Nobody wants to tackle that so they build them and walk away.
In the UK we managed for a generation to have council housing available to those who needed it.
Another possible solution to overpriced housing is being tried in Berlin:
Like many cities around the world, rents in the German capital of Berlin have soared in recent years, doubling in the last decade alone.
But unlike many other cities, the people of Berlin are actually doing something about it.
Campaigners want the government to take apartments from real estate firms that own more than 3,000 apartments, place them into public ownership, and rent them out at more affordable rates.
The estimated market value of the real estate in question is up to €36 billion ($44 billion), CityMonitor reported, but the group has suggested compensation of as little as €8 billion ($10 billion), arguing that the prices are based on speculation and overpriced rental yields rather than real value.
In a city where around 85% of residents live in rented accommodation, and where more than 200,000 publicly owned apartments have been sold off since 1990 to private equity firms and hedge funds, the issue has taken on acute significance.
A petition started in February for a referendum on the plan has already collected 130,000 signatures, meaning there is a very real possibility that Berlin authorities will be forced to hold a referendum on the subject in September.
The group wants to collect 240,000 signatures by the end of June, which would be enough to force a referendum on the subject. There is also a strong chance that the referendum could pass, forcing lawmakers to consider the plan: A poll carried out in April indicated that 47% of Berlin residents supported the proposal, with 43% opposed and 9% undecided. [Obviously the article is a little old, but they were talking about it on the telly today so I guess it is moving forward]
But unlike many other cities, the people of Berlin are actually doing something about it.
Campaigners want the government to take apartments from real estate firms that own more than 3,000 apartments, place them into public ownership, and rent them out at more affordable rates.
The estimated market value of the real estate in question is up to €36 billion ($44 billion), CityMonitor reported, but the group has suggested compensation of as little as €8 billion ($10 billion), arguing that the prices are based on speculation and overpriced rental yields rather than real value.
In a city where around 85% of residents live in rented accommodation, and where more than 200,000 publicly owned apartments have been sold off since 1990 to private equity firms and hedge funds, the issue has taken on acute significance.
A petition started in February for a referendum on the plan has already collected 130,000 signatures, meaning there is a very real possibility that Berlin authorities will be forced to hold a referendum on the subject in September.
The group wants to collect 240,000 signatures by the end of June, which would be enough to force a referendum on the subject. There is also a strong chance that the referendum could pass, forcing lawmakers to consider the plan: A poll carried out in April indicated that 47% of Berlin residents supported the proposal, with 43% opposed and 9% undecided. [Obviously the article is a little old, but they were talking about it on the telly today so I guess it is moving forward]
With council houses the occupants rented from the local government (council) at a controlled rate. The maintenance was handled by them as by a private landlord. If you were unemployed or very low paid you got benefits to cover the rent (probably paid direct to the council, but I never experienced it).
These houses are actually fairly in demand, they were built better than the cheap things the private sector is throwing up now.
Who is the "them"?
The the local government, called the council here. They were significant employers, now most such services have been contracted out.
Fundamentally, this is an ownership plus capability problem. People who own can always borrow to value-add (or maintain) to their property, and if they don't need to borrow it creates a place to invest their savings. The 'problem' with just giving the homes is that we live in a world where enough people are willing to depreciate an asset to fund present consumption. It's a pickle.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,616
That's an interesting fundamental divergence of experience with the same exact governments.
Maintenance is in some ways more onerous than new construction. And that's taxed as you go along performing it, too.
Yes, and if the ownership does not sit with the occupant, the tendency is to only minimally maintain a property. Surfside shows us that collective ownership is not much better.
Similar threads
- Locked
