We need an alternative, because a nation servicing interest on debt as its #1 fiscal line-item is historically irrecoverable #2027 #ThisTimeIsDifferent?
My proposed alternative is that we must accept (as individual nations, perhaps some even balkanized) that austerity measures are irreversible, globally. We cannot help everybody. We should not help anybody until we've helped our own countrymen/fellow-neighbors, first.
----
Even Warren Buffett agrees (and his heavily interviewed) espousing the necessity of taxing high net-worth individuals at higher rates (in his definition, $20M+ net-worth). He is not alone in Billionaires quotes similarly.
No Trillionaire has yet agreed with this statement, and fortunately this "accomplishment" must again (thankfully IMHO) wait to become precedent.
Future you might disagree with present you. But even if we disregard time, I think millions of consumers would benefit from the opportunity to have competitive markets again. If an actual economic forest fire was allowed to burn, we might eliminate some of the too-big-to-fail corruption and oligopoly that is the norm now and provide space for new seeds to grow.
The problem with this idea which is common in some circles is that most of the businesses involved are commodity or lowish margin. They likely got built either with government support or before the current margin's were a thing. Becdause you can't make a high enough ROI on building a new competitor your seeds will likely die in barren soil never having germinated. In today's markets the likely result will be increased business going to China, India, Vietnam and the like. If you're talking about banking then the worst possible scenario at a national level is that you're borrowing money denominated in a foreign currency. The adventure after 1929 was a result of deliberate policy to liquidate and let it burn.
We already have anti-trust and other regulation to manage this problem, we simply need to use it.
There's no end of competition, the world changes, companies bloat and make bad choices, smaller competitors can react and change faster - it's only in our corporate hegemony that we don't consider that a viable alternative.
Manipulation of the market never comes for free.
You just delay, and render unpredictable, the eventual reckoning, for short-term benefits.
It will be interesting to see who’s gonna blame the free market when that day arrives.
> You just delay, and render unpredictable, the eventual reckoning, for short-term benefits.
After a century, those short-term benefits add up to a long term benefit.
You plan on being here for over a century?
Manipulating the market is literally the job of both the Treasury and the FOMC. It’s how we enact monetary policy.
We need an alternative, because a nation servicing interest on debt as its #1 fiscal line-item is historically irrecoverable #2027 #ThisTimeIsDifferent?
My proposed alternative is that we must accept (as individual nations, perhaps some even balkanized) that austerity measures are irreversible, globally. We cannot help everybody. We should not help anybody until we've helped our own countrymen/fellow-neighbors, first.
----
Even Warren Buffett agrees (and his heavily interviewed) espousing the necessity of taxing high net-worth individuals at higher rates (in his definition, $20M+ net-worth). He is not alone in Billionaires quotes similarly.
No Trillionaire has yet agreed with this statement, and fortunately this "accomplishment" must again (thankfully IMHO) wait to become precedent.
> Literally no one benefits from the alternative.
Future you might disagree with present you. But even if we disregard time, I think millions of consumers would benefit from the opportunity to have competitive markets again. If an actual economic forest fire was allowed to burn, we might eliminate some of the too-big-to-fail corruption and oligopoly that is the norm now and provide space for new seeds to grow.
The problem with this idea which is common in some circles is that most of the businesses involved are commodity or lowish margin. They likely got built either with government support or before the current margin's were a thing. Becdause you can't make a high enough ROI on building a new competitor your seeds will likely die in barren soil never having germinated. In today's markets the likely result will be increased business going to China, India, Vietnam and the like. If you're talking about banking then the worst possible scenario at a national level is that you're borrowing money denominated in a foreign currency. The adventure after 1929 was a result of deliberate policy to liquidate and let it burn.
You can’t have competition forever. At some point someone wins decisively, and then there is only the illusion of competition.
We already have anti-trust and other regulation to manage this problem, we simply need to use it.
There's no end of competition, the world changes, companies bloat and make bad choices, smaller competitors can react and change faster - it's only in our corporate hegemony that we don't consider that a viable alternative.
2 replies →