1 and 2. These are what I mean by capital distribution:
Prop up the liberal mixed economy: with a programme of mass employee stock ownership (mostly your 1); or by carving each full-time job into several part-time ones, plus heavy wage subsidies (your 2) (...); or get the government to buy every 18 year old a serious stock portfolio (your 2)
Basic income is also political in your sense (2), since it’s a large government-driven change from the status quo (and, unless we wait for >> 50 years of growth before we implement it, it will likely involve tax hikes *).
One reason to favour building up private stocks (over UBI, a flow) is that this protects people (a bit) from later nativist or populist governments cutting off parts of the population. It still goes through politicians, but only once rather than annually. Not sure what protects against revolutionary appropriation (3) though.
(ESOPs are a relatively apolitical nudge, but I don’t know how much of the problem they’d solve.)
\* World growth this year was 3.1%. Compounding that fifty times gets us $370tn GWP. It’s hard to tell what the ‘average world tax rate’ is at present, but approximate it with public expenditure, around 25% of GWP. If we could only use 25% of $370tn, we’d be roughly where the above long extreme calculation put us: nowhere near enough.
So, which of these don’t “transfer vastly more economic power too politicians”? At least basic income is relatively straightforward monetary taxation and distribution (a flow of meaningless fiat-money). Other meddling in capital ownership (corporate stocks? you want governments to control business ownership?) puts FAR more power in political hands.
1 and 2. These are what I mean by capital distribution:
Basic income is also political in your sense (2), since it’s a large government-driven change from the status quo (and, unless we wait for >> 50 years of growth before we implement it, it will likely involve tax hikes *).
One reason to favour building up private stocks (over UBI, a flow) is that this protects people (a bit) from later nativist or populist governments cutting off parts of the population. It still goes through politicians, but only once rather than annually. Not sure what protects against revolutionary appropriation (3) though.
(ESOPs are a relatively apolitical nudge, but I don’t know how much of the problem they’d solve.)
\* World growth this year was 3.1%. Compounding that fifty times gets us $370tn GWP. It’s hard to tell what the ‘average world tax rate’ is at present, but approximate it with public expenditure, around 25% of GWP. If we could only use 25% of $370tn, we’d be roughly where the above long extreme calculation put us: nowhere near enough.
So, which of these don’t “transfer vastly more economic power too politicians”? At least basic income is relatively straightforward monetary taxation and distribution (a flow of meaningless fiat-money). Other meddling in capital ownership (corporate stocks? you want governments to control business ownership?) puts FAR more power in political hands.