5 economic reforms millennials should fight for (article)

[brinstar]

from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20140103

not gonna paste the entire article but here's the list headers:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

i love this article, shit owns hard

[Narrock]

Just like a good socialist... put everybody on an equal footing, punish success, pay taxes out the ass. Oh and RS is a piece of shit RAG.

[Ganzo]

from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20140103

not gonna paste the entire article but here's the list headers:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

i love this article, shit owns hard

So you want to live in the Soviet Union

[brinstar]

no, i want to live in an america that values all its citizens and doesn't shit opportunity down its leg at every occasion. did either of you actually read the article?

[Narrock]

Trickle up poverty at its finest.

[brinstar]

guess not. too many big words? lulz

read this last one at least - and keep in mind ND is one of the most conservative states in the union, so it's not like this is some crazy liberal concoction:

5. A Public Bank in Every State

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.

[Narrock]

Ever heard of a Credit Union? You know... those "banks" that are not-for-profit, offer no-strings-attached free checking, no debit card fees, ultra-low interest loans for homes, cars, and personal loans? Yeah. Go check it out.

You have no idea what kind of America you will get with that retarded plan. If something like that were to actually get implemented, you will find out first hand what life behind the iron curtain is like.

[Ganzo]

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

You don't see it, I guess. So let's take it by items:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody- How do you propose to achieve it without socializing and de-privatizing all business? How do you force a private business to hire someone? On the flip side, if I always have guaranteed job, what is my deterent from not siting on YouTube all day while at work, even if I get fired I'm guaranteed a job. - This is exactly what brought down the USSR

2. Social Security for All - It's something I agree with, but isn't it there already or you want some different version?

3. Take Back the Land - From whom and give it to whom? To government? So make "kolhoz" like the USSR had and all share in land profits? Well, see number 1.

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody - When everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible. See number 1

5. A Public Bank in Every State - As Mindia said, already there with Credit Unions.

So 3 out of 5 call for communism and other 2 are socialist/communist agendas already in place in the US and you ask why I see this proposal as building another USSR?

[Narrock]

Checkmate.

[Menelvir]

As long as it comes to fruition after I'm worm food, I'm okay with it. I don't really want to live through the sturm und drang that an abrupt shift to this system would entail -- it would be messy, as all revolutions are.

The system we have is far from perfect, but I'll take relative stability and status quo for the next sixty years or so -- afterwards, by all means, please overthrow the system and re-invent the wheel all you like.

Now if the prevailing will is that this is the most desirable goal, I'm fine with working towards that end by way of small shifts and baby steps -- just no abrupt, major revolutions until after I'm dead, please.

And it isn't to say that refinements and tweaking are undesirable -- certainly some systems could be modified to work better than they do currently -- the passage of ACA is probably a prime example of moving in this general direction.

Technically, I'm not a Millenial, I'm Generation X. But if not wanting to experience a revolution and major societal upheaval in my lifetime makes me selfish, then I'm okay with that label.

[brinstar]

Ever heard of a Credit Union? You know... those "banks" that are not-for-profit, offer no-strings-attached free checking, no debit card fees, ultra-low interest loans for homes, cars, and personal loans? Yeah. Go check it out.

already a member, smart guy. the difference is a CU uses returns on investment to finance loans, whereas a public bank like ND's uses state taxes.

You have no idea what kind of America you will get with that retarded plan.

neither do you. seems to be working just fine for ND though!

[brinstar]

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

You don't see it, I guess. So let's take it by items:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody- How do you propose to achieve it without socializing and de-privatizing all business? How do you force a private business to hire someone? On the flip side, if I always have guaranteed job, what is my deterent from not siting on YouTube all day while at work, even if I get fired I'm guaranteed a job. - This is exactly what brought down the USSR

2. Social Security for All - It's something I agree with, but isn't it there already or you want some different version?

3. Take Back the Land - From whom and give it to whom? To government? So make "kolhoz" like the USSR had and all share in land profits? Well, see number 1.

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody - When everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible. See number 1

5. A Public Bank in Every State - As Mindia said, already there with Credit Unions.

So 3 out of 5 call for communism and other 2 are socialist/communist agendas already in place in the US and you ask why I see this proposal as building another USSR?

still seems like you didn't bother to read the article

1. public works job bank is not the same as deprivatizing everything. it's like this: our infrastructure is going to shit, our rail system is decades behind other first-world nations, and we desperately need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. meanwhile, there are literally 3 unemployed people for every job opening in america. how about instead of paying unemployment, we pay employment? that way lots of shit gets done, people support themselves and each other, workers have money to buy things so the economy starts growing again, more income taxes come in so we can pay off debt, etc. i don't actually advocate pure socialism, i just feel the current balance between capitalism and socialism has tipped just a bit too far to the capitalism side

2. it's good, but could be better. main problem i see is that it doesn't really keep up with inflation (neither does minimum wage, but that's another topic). other thing that bothers me is that it's not progressive after $120k/yr income - in other words, someone who makes $125k/yr pays the exact same dollar amount into the SS trust as someone who makes $12.5m/yr

3. to be fair he kinda lost me on this one. he does make some good common-sense arguments about rental property ownership though - if i go buy a building and do almost nothing to maintain it and live off tenants' rent money, how is that not freeloading? nobody likes a slumlord

4. again he kinda strays too far even for me on this one, as there's a line that divides democratic socialism from full-blooded socialism that i don't like to cross. what i would substitute here is the idea that some municipalities in CA have looked at, which is using eminent domain to seize foreclosed empty buildings/homes/property that have sat on the market for too long

5. as i said above, not quite the same thing

[Narrock]

This plan is a recipe for disaster.

[Arlos]

There's certainly some things I don't agree with, but:

1) We DESPERATELY need to improve our infrastructure here in this country. We haven't had major expenditures on it since they built the interstate system in the 50s. We need that kind of works project again. We need to not just update roads and bridges, but all sorts of other stuff too. The power grid is one. We need to go to a much smarter grid and convert a lot of the power lines to underground ones. Not only would this reduce outages due to storms/blizzards/drunk assholes hitting poles, but would also make them much harder for potential terrorists to damage. Smarter grids would allow re-routing around damaged sections as well, also reducing outages. Spending on infrastructure projects in a big way would drastically reduce the amount we spend on unemployment and other low-income benefits, as there would be a lot more jobs available for people. Not just in the actual construction itself, but all the back office jobs supporting the construction, at all of the companies supplying parts/materials/etc. This whole thing is such a win/win for everyone, I can't see why there's such objections to it. Hell, infrastructure is even one thing just about everyone agrees the government SHOULD handle. If it helps the economy, provides lots of jobs, and benefits EVERYONE, why the hell not do it?

2) Removing the cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security completely removes all of the sustainability issues people have been harping on, according to figures that have been in the news. You know all those horror stories about Social Security running out of money because of Boomers retiring? 100% fixed if that cap is removed. Besides, why SHOULD someone who makes 10mil a year pay a lower percentage of his income into social security than someone making 50k?

3) Yeah, no. I can see SOME eminent domain takebacks of places where the owners have completely failed in all rational obligations for upkeep of the place, but this is an incredibly slippery slope. You will NEVER convince people to seriously touch the concept of private ownership of land/buildings/etc, nor should you.

4) Yeah, no also. Ignores human nature.

5) Public bank is a good idea, but again, opens a huge can of worms with worries about malfeasance, management costs, etc. Besides, most states don't have the excess incoming capital to set aside to be the seed for such a bank, as everything they take in is already allocated, if they're not having to slash things to fix budget deficits.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

This plan is a recipe for disaster.

USE YOUR WORDS BILLY. explain your views with a substantive argument, otherwise don't even bother posting

There's certainly some things I don't agree with, but:

1) We DESPERATELY need to improve our infrastructure here in this country. We haven't had major expenditures on it since they built the interstate system in the 50s. We need that kind of works project again. We need to not just update roads and bridges, but all sorts of other stuff too. The power grid is one. We need to go to a much smarter grid and convert a lot of the power lines to underground ones. Not only would this reduce outages due to storms/blizzards/drunk assholes hitting poles, but would also make them much harder for potential terrorists to damage. Smarter grids would allow re-routing around damaged sections as well, also reducing outages. Spending on infrastructure projects in a big way would drastically reduce the amount we spend on unemployment and other low-income benefits, as there would be a lot more jobs available for people. Not just in the actual construction itself, but all the back office jobs supporting the construction, at all of the companies supplying parts/materials/etc. This whole thing is such a win/win for everyone, I can't see why there's such objections to it. Hell, infrastructure is even one thing just about everyone agrees the government SHOULD handle. If it helps the economy, provides lots of jobs, and benefits EVERYONE, why the hell not do it?

2) Removing the cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security completely removes all of the sustainability issues people have been harping on, according to figures that have been in the news. You know all those horror stories about Social Security running out of money because of Boomers retiring? 100% fixed if that cap is removed. Besides, why SHOULD someone who makes 10mil a year pay a lower percentage of his income into social security than someone making 50k?

3) Yeah, no. I can see SOME eminent domain takebacks of places where the owners have completely failed in all rational obligations for upkeep of the place, but this is an incredibly slippery slope. You will NEVER convince people to seriously touch the concept of private ownership of land/buildings/etc, nor should you.

4) Yeah, no also. Ignores human nature.

5) Public bank is a good idea, but again, opens a huge can of worms with worries about malfeasance, management costs, etc. Besides, most states don't have the excess incoming capital to set aside to be the seed for such a bank, as everything they take in is already allocated, if they're not having to slash things to fix budget deficits.

-Arlos

1) doesn't matter how good an idea it is, hyuk hyuk. if my AM radio tells me i'm agin' it, i'm agin' it!

2) see #1

3) see #4

4) calling bullshit. plenty of other human cultures enjoyed publicly-owned land and means of production. it's against white european nature, which is why we gleefully murdered/enslaved people for whom such systems worked just fine

5) yes and no. if set up correctly, a public bank could allow levels of transparency even credit unions would balk at - plus the management could be made directly accountable to voters, rather than shareholders (banks) or members (CUs). totally fair point about seed money, but ask colorado about ways to get a huge influx of tax revenue out of nowhere

[Spazz]

but ask colorado about ways to get a huge influx of tax revenue out of nowhere

I think the price is still to high and they are going to miss out on a lot of tax money due to blackmarket activity. Its a good start but theres a lot of bugs to be worked out. Just so we are clear im not bitching so much as saying theres still miles to go on that policy.

[Tikker]

.

[Narrock]

Brinstar said:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

I didn't have time to respond to the whole thing at the time, Skippy, so here you go:

1. There's not enough industry to guarantee work for everybody, especially when you take into consideration the massive influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as our naturalized-citizen population explosion. We're going to run into sustainability issues in the near future as it is.

2. We are already forced to pay into the social security issue, but the problem is... the stupid government is spending more from that fund than it's taking in. I've heard that 700 million bucks was "borrowed" from social security to fund "obamacare" but I'll have to google more on that claim later. Social Security should be privatized so the government can't steal it in the form of "borrowing" it.

3. I still don't get what this is all about, but I'm all for encroaching (a bit) onto BLM land to build more housing, including "affordable housing."

4. Who, or what governing body gets to determine which person gets to own which thing (thing, referring to "everything"), and what percentage?

5. Credit Unions are good enough for reasons I already stated.

[brinstar]

see was that so hard? damn

1. There's not enough industry to guarantee work for everybody, especially when you take into consideration the massive influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as our naturalized-citizen population explosion. We're going to run into sustainability issues in the near future as it is.

2. We are already forced to pay into the social security issue, but the problem is... the stupid government is spending more from that fund than it's taking in. I've heard that 700 million bucks was "borrowed" from social security to fund "obamacare" but I'll have to google more on that claim later. Social Security should be privatized so the government can't steal it in the form of "borrowing" it.

3. I still don't get what this is all about, but I'm all for encroaching (a bit) onto BLM land to build more housing, including "affordable housing."

4. Who, or what governing body gets to determine which person gets to own which thing (thing, referring to "everything"), and what percentage?

5. Credit Unions are good enough for reasons I already stated.

1. that is an interesting stance to take. one problem with it is that you're basically saying, and i am inclined to agree, that even in a best-case scenario (i.e. with no illegals) there's not enough work for everyone to be productive and support themselves. it then follows that in any less-than-best-case scenario there isn't even close to enough work for everyone to support themselves - yes, especially considering all the illegal workers. so a) is it fair to blame those who literally can't find work for being unemployed when there are mathematically way more people than jobs? and b) what are we to do with all those people?

you are also correct to be concerned about sustainability, but IMHO it goes far beyond the problem of the unemployed outnumbering jobs 3-to-1 (or worse) especially as the cost of fossil fuels continues to rise.

2. i think you've been sold misleading right wing rhetoric. the truth is that part of the ACA reduces spending increases (not current spending) in medicare over the next couple decades, and uses that savings to put toward medicaid expansion and tax subsidies to help the poor get insurance. nothing was "stolen" at all.

anyway, yes, the govt is spending more on SS than it's taking in, but that's because the wealthy pay a MUCH smaller percentage into the trust fund than everyone else (yes, percentage, not dollar amount). as arlos and i have already pointed out, doing away with that $120k/yr cap will fix SS sustainability for the next century and possibly beyond. that's why tax rates need to be progressive* - so people like you and me don't get stuck with footing the whole bill.

*not the same as "progressive politics"

3. as i said i'm iffy on this one but the basic gist seems to stray into the philosophical: what does it mean to actually own a building? you'll have to read the article to really get at what he's talking about

it is interesting that you point to the need for more affordable housing, but the fact is that vacant homes currently outnumber homeless people by more than a 5-to-1 ratio (3.5m homeless, 19m vacant homes). where's the sense in that? solutions are available, but no one in govt has the political will to try anything for fear of angering donors.

4. same as 3, i'm not really willing to follow him across the line between democratic socialism and real socialism.

5. i'll concede this one, as CUs are pretty great. i still think ND's model is pretty badass though!

[Narrock]

Brinstar said:

see was that so hard? damn

Brinstar missed when Narrock said:

I didn't have time to respond to the whole thing at the time, Skippy, so here you go:

[brinstar]

boo hoo hoo i didn't have time to offer anything of substance so i decided to shitpost instead, and now i'm gonna blame you for calling me out on it

jog on

[Narrock]

I accept your half-assed apology

[brinstar]

troll detected

[Lyion]

from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20140103

not gonna paste the entire article but here's the list headers:

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back the Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

i love this article, shit owns hard

<snide anti jewish banker statement taken out>

I generally agree with Ganzo, but I think in a better country we'd have more opportunity, less hedge funds, less lawyers, and a government focused on the people instead of drone strikes in Pakistan.

This does smack of socialism, but there's nothing wrong with that if done properly. The problem is it leads to despots and kremlins, which is far worse than our flawed capitalistic system.

[brinstar]

<snide anti jewish banker statement taken out>

I generally agree with Ganzo, but I think in a better country we'd have more opportunity, less hedge funds, less lawyers, and a government focused on the people instead of drone strikes in Pakistan.

This does smack of socialism, but there's nothing wrong with that if done properly. The problem is it leads to despots and kremlins, which is far worse than our flawed capitalistic system.

wise move, that was a pretty dick thing to say

i pretty much agree with everything else you posted. like i said above, since our system is basically a variable balance between socialism and capitalism, there are big problems with tipping too far in either direction. the frenzy of deregulation in the past 30 years (including the repeal of glass-steagall under the clinton administration) combined with endless war profiteering has shoved that balance dangerously to the capitalism side