Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
aa3

How To Distribute The Surplus

Recommended Posts

First a quote from Orwell's 1984.

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it

was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and

therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the

machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt,

illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations.

If the economy over the next 20 years does sort of average, and we add just 2% a year in real gdp per capita, that will be an extra ~40% by 2030. Since our gdp is about £20,000 pounds a year per person. This works out to an extra £8,000 a year per person(£32,000 for a family of 4). Or around £480 billion a year for the whole nation.

The question then is who should this money go to. For our leaders the answer is obvious. It should all go to the top 1%.. and then also some extra taken away from the middle and low to also be given to the top 1%. Same as the last two or three decades.

My proposal is take a good £320 billion of that and fund a citizen's income. £500 a month to every adult 45m*6000= 270b + £250 a month for every child 15m*300= 45b. £5b for administration.

And take the remaining £160 billion and give it to the richest 1%. Which works out to £355,000 extra a year for each member of the top 1%.

Edited by aa3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't GDP a bit of a red herring?

If one half of the population dig a hole, and the other half fill it in, the statistics show 100% employment and a high resultant GDP. But it doesn't prove that we are doing anything 'worthwhile'.

We need other metrics. Especially ones which record productive output. Then we can decide the monetary distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism, capitalism, facism, socialism. Nothing really changes?

Bloomberg / Businessweek 10/25/2010:

The top 20% richest Americans own 84% of the nation’s total wealth. The poorest 20% own 0.1%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39798688/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/

This article appears to be hidden by the search engines, some effort was used to find it again! A consipracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't GDP a bit of a red herring?

If one half of the population dig a hole, and the other half fill it in, the statistics show 100% employment and a high resultant GDP. But it doesn't prove that we are doing anything 'worthwhile'.

We need other metrics. Especially ones which record productive output. Then we can decide the monetary distribution.

Precisely.

Since GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) a rise in GDP can result from the government or people simply borrowing more money to spend.

Increase spending, increase the deficit, pile on the debt and GDP goes up. The illusion of prosperity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.

Since GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) a rise in GDP can result from the government or people simply borrowing more money to spend.

Increase spending, increase the deficit, pile on the debt and GDP goes up. The illusion of prosperity!

yes, GDP is a measure of economic activity.

Wealth Production is what keeps us alive,

If the machines provided all, why would anyone need any money at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we can decide the monetary distribution.

"we" cannot decide anything.

We have no right to another person's property or possessions. It is not up to government to decide what the monetary distribution will be, it is up to individuals to decide what they wil spend their money on and who they will give it to and for what.

the surplus gets distributed to the people who make things that most people want to part with their money for, if politicians decide it wil just go to their special interest groups.

As an aside - a universal benefit or citizen's income would be a great idea: simple, fair, targeted, cheaper, incentivising etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we" cannot decide anything.

We have no right to another person's property or possessions. It is not up to government to decide what the monetary distribution will be, it is up to individuals to decide what they wil spend their money on and who they will give it to and for what.

the surplus gets distributed to the people who make things that most people want to part with their money for, if politicians decide it wil just go to their special interest groups.

As an aside - a universal benefit or citizen's income would be a great idea: simple, fair, targeted, cheaper, incentivising etc.

how about if everyone just recieved the same emoluments as everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a quote from Orwell's 1984.

If the economy over the next 20 years does sort of average, and we add just 2% a year in real gdp per capita, that will be an extra ~40% by 2030. Since our gdp is about £20,000 pounds a year per person. This works out to an extra £8,000 a year per person(£32,000 for a family of 4). Or around £480 billion a year for the whole nation.

The question then is who should this money go to. For our leaders the answer is obvious. It should all go to the top 1%.. and then also some extra taken away from the middle and low to also be given to the top 1%. Same as the last two or three decades.

My proposal is take a good £320 billion of that and fund a citizen's income. £500 a month to every adult 45m*6000= 270b + £250 a month for every child 15m*300= 45b. £5b for administration.

And take the remaining £160 billion and give it to the richest 1%. Which works out to £355,000 extra a year for each member of the top 1%.

If house prices were massively cheaper, we'd all be relatively richer with, proportionately a huge disposable income each.

HPC is the answer to it all. *

* however, not saying what would happen to average wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.

Since GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) a rise in GDP can result from the government or people simply borrowing more money to spend.

Increase spending, increase the deficit, pile on the debt and GDP goes up. The illusion of prosperity!

It also doesn't count service consumption correctly. If I make a ham sandwich and sell it to someone that makes a chicken sandwich and sells it to me, the product is the same as if we'd each made the other sandwich and ate it directly, yet the service cost is counted in the first case and not in the second.

What a pointless metric. Popular economists today are ignorant fools.

Edited by Maihem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also doesn't count service consumption correctly. If I make a ham sandwich and sell it to someone that makes a chicken sandwich and sells it to me, the product is the same as if we'd each made the other sandwich and ate it directly, yet the service cost is counted in the first case and not in the second.

What a pointless metric. Popular economists today are ignorant fools.

Or if the housewife goes to work, in order to pay the nanny for looking after her kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the economy over the next 20 years does sort of average, and we add just 2% a year in real gdp per capita

Supposedly we have had exactly this since the 1970s, and yet now we have an economy where professional couples between 30 and 40 both need to work full time to pay the mortgage on a small house/flat, and people under 30 are totally excluded from secure accommodation. 40 years ago a blue collar worker in his 20s could afford to keep a wife and kids in a small house on his wage alone. I see no economic growth, just bad statistics.

Some might say, "Oh it's just a housing bubble, the rest of the economy has grown" but let's wait and see what's left of the rest of it after the housing bubble bursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if the housewife goes to work, in order to pay the nanny for looking after her kids.

Both Person A and Person B are able/qualified to look after Person A's children, but only Person A is a nuclear physicist.

Wouldn't Person A taking a job as a nuclear physicist and letting Person B look after their kids generate more GDP than if Person A looked after her own kids? First of all that would make the best economical gain by using Person A's skills fully, and generating another job that's available for a Person B-like person to be able to accept.

Please do correct me if I'm making a nasty economic blunder! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Person A and Person B are able/qualified to look after Person A's children, but only Person A is a nuclear physicist.

Wouldn't Person A taking a job as a nuclear physicist and letting Person B look after their kids generate more GDP than if Person A looked after her own kids? First of all that would make the best economical gain by using Person A's skills fully, and generating another job that's available for a Person B-like person to be able to accept.

Please do correct me if I'm making a nasty economic blunder! :D

you have...the Nuclear physicist works at McDonalds.

indeed, most Nuclear Physicists ( whatever that is) would work for government funded organisations, and would only increase the GDP via the GOVERNMENT SPENDING part of the GDP calc....borrowed money that the Macdonalds burger flippers will need to create wealth for to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have...the Nuclear physicist works at McDonalds.

indeed, most Nuclear Physicists ( whatever that is) would work for government funded organisations, and would only increase the GDP via the GOVERNMENT SPENDING part of the GDP calc....borrowed money that the Macdonalds burger flippers will need to create wealth for to pay.

I don't think you're entering into the spirit of my hypothetical example.

As I'm sure you well know, I was only making the point that if paying for a child-minder squeezes more economical value out of the system (in this case, the human resource), then doesn't that *really* increase GDP.

It was a serious question; try a serious reply! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% a year gdp growth will probably not even cover inflation, so under that basis there will be no extra money to give.

The only thing we will have is a huge improvement yet again technology:

Extremely powerful computers

Biotechnology revolution well and truly in force

Maybe some emerging nanotechnology

Probably these technologies will give a huge improvement to quiality of life and the 'poor' (who will probably still sit on their asses getting subsidised) will be better off than the 'rich' and hard working today.

Edited by blackgoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're entering into the spirit of my hypothetical example.

As I'm sure you well know, I was only making the point that if paying for a child-minder squeezes more economical value out of the system (in this case, the human resource), then doesn't that *really* increase GDP.

It was a serious question; try a serious reply! :)

It was a serious reply:lol:

me, for example, can charge my rate for my work because someone else can afford me while their efforts make more for them, or, them doing my work stops them from earning.

GDP doesnt measure wealth creation.

If your mum goes out to work as a hole filler in the local authority and the nanny only has a job because the hole filling takes place, then Keyenes was right, pay someone to dig a hole and someone else to fill it.

but this is a fallacy....sure, two people are in work and earning money, but the system has created no wealth with which to back the money...the money becomes worthless,

So sure, the nanny can be employed by the mum at no cost to society IF the mum creates some wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a quote from Orwell's 1984.

If the economy over the next 20 years does sort of average, and we add just 2% a year in real gdp per capita, that will be an extra ~40% by 2030. Since our gdp is about £20,000 pounds a year per person. This works out to an extra £8,000 a year per person(£32,000 for a family of 4). Or around £480 billion a year for the whole nation.

The question then is who should this money go to. For our leaders the answer is obvious. It should all go to the top 1%.. and then also some extra taken away from the middle and low to also be given to the top 1%. Same as the last two or three decades.

My proposal is take a good £320 billion of that and fund a citizen's income. £500 a month to every adult 45m*6000= 270b + £250 a month for every child 15m*300= 45b. £5b for administration.

And take the remaining £160 billion and give it to the richest 1%. Which works out to £355,000 extra a year for each member of the top 1%.

Nice that you quote 1984 there aa3, but apart from your notion of citizens income being marxist in flavour (and we all know that communism isn't open to systemic fraud like that nasty capitalism (yeah right)), you are associating your solution with the perpetual war that was happening in said novel.

Altruism doesn't stay altruistic for long, it is the human instinct to want to be at the top of the pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra surplus created by producers is taken out of producer's hands by the rising price of land the production causes. If you want this to change without derstroying the surplus, you need to look at reforming land

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, GDP is a measure of economic activity.

Wealth Production is what keeps us alive,

If the machines provided all, why would anyone need any money at all?

Money would in theory become irrelevant. See post-scarcity society.

PS But as highlighted in the above article, some items - e.g. hand-produced pieces of art - would always be "rare" and thus some kind of money would still exist.

Edited by DeepLurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% a year gdp growth will probably not even cover inflation, so under that basis there will be no extra money to give.

Indeed and what growth there will be may well be largely due to population growth. GDP per capital is more relevant. I suspect there will be a end to growth, in effect, due to resource shortages. The concept that the earth resources are infinite is a mind boggling but apparently almost universally held belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra surplus created by producers is taken out of producer's hands by the rising price of land the production causes. If you want this to change without derstroying the surplus, you need to look at reforming land

+1

The benefit from technological progress has clustered at the wealthy end of society, due to the Law of Rent. This has been well known for over two centuries, yet little has been done about it. The rich feast, while the rest of us desperately search for the crumbs.

EDIT: typo

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, there seems to be growing support (see comments) for a CI or NIT (the latter being more like the IDS, 'universal benefit'): http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/10/john-moss-re-introducing-the-idea-of-negative-income-tax.html

There is an old idea called negative income tax, which, if coupled with part of the idea Andrew is promoting, makes something which starts to look a lot like IDS's Universal Credit.

Few seem to be making the connection between benefits and the cost of shelter, although the recent debate about the housing benefit may rattle a few brain cells into action. Without a LVT of some sort, any CI/NIT will be sucked into higher rents/land prices over time.

I strongly support the ideas of CI/NIT, but it needs to be matched with a tax to cut rent seeking on shelter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

Um, the question is - what right do you have to determine where the money goes? Are you trolling?

What right does a really big landowner have telling you, you have to pay him to build a house on his property? The force of the state backs it up.

Likewise the state can distribute the surplus however it wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 246 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.