The Thread of Dangerous Ideas -Economic edition

ITT we post and discuss radical economic national solutions, I'll start:
>$350k annual maximum personal income
>Nationalize all military contractors

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/o31SXR10s-c?t=20m38s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>$350k annual maximum personal income
What are you, european?

>$350k annual maximum personal income
Great way to scare every successful person, or at least all of their wealth, from the country

>$350k
>not a legitimate fuckload of money

What is the point of capping income exactly? Do you even know where rich people get money? It's not wages

>$350k annual maximum personal income

Goodbye everything you see around you, including your home, computer, phone, clothes, that lamp sitting on your desk, the paper in your printer, everything made by people who want more than $350k/year.

this

at least their wealth
this could be true

Capping money doesn't do anything.

Make college 10X harder but guarantee a low welfare payment to those who complete it. Hopefully they will get a job instead that pays more.

ok, max wage BTFO

nationalize military contractors?
why should they profit so much from our "defense"?

This is interesting...does anyone get the chance, or is it still funded privately?

Eh, I don't see the point. They are effectively nationalized already. The real red pill on defense companies is that the Government gives them insane contracts, pays upfront, etc. for a reason which is not corruption. The real goal is to ensure that America will always have a defense industry present so that when a big war, like WWII, come around we will be able to ramp up military production faster than any country. Even china can't do that because they would need to spend months/years converting civilian factories to military production. This is not to say that there is no corruption at all but it isn't the main thing.

And you think that ideal is worth the obscene amount of military spending we do?

readiness for a war on two global fronts, which has been our standard, is no longer necessary.

i am not impressed with private companies selling intelligence and hackig software to foreign governments

am i a leftie because usa sells guns?

>is no longer necessary
This could have easily been said in the 1920s, Europe was in chaos, germany a wreck, russia in revolution and starvation, things can change very quickly.

youtu.be/o31SXR10s-c?t=20m38s

nationalizing businesses that have been sold to investors by the inventor

taboo?

>by the capitalist
ftfy
yes, nationalization is a taboo subject in america, because (((someone))) wants to hold on to their shekels

True, isolationism is death.
That doesn't mean the military-industrial complex doesn't sell the military as they would any other consumer, with this process leading to waste

only if you think the selling of guns to foreign interests is because of a globalist upper class

in my young life all ive seen syria do with tanks we paid then to buy from us is kill protestors who were upset at 60yr monarchy

so uh yeah

far left and far right are closer than most think
right sees the problem as race
left sees it as class

>nationalizing businesses that have been sold to investors by the inventor

Why the fuck would any investors buy a business if the country is just going to take it away from them?

Of course. I'm not saying the system is efficient or optimized in any way but there is, at the very least, a method to the madness.

1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the Tennessee Electric Power Company.
1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed Savings & Loans.

we've done it before

this has to be some commie baiting

nope, far-right ideas welcome here as well

>we've done it before

It still doesn't answer the question for me.

If it happens "almost never" then there's a reason for investors to buy. If it happens "every time" then there obviously isn't.

Imo there should be laws on holding too much capital, though income shouldn't be limited. For example a rich banker should legally have to reinvest a decent percentage of their wealth back into the system instead of just hoarding it like they do at the moment.

>holding too much capital
Does gold count as capital?
Do houses count?

1. Ban marathon running.
2. Raise the UK bank rate to 2%. Stop quantitive easing (not actually radical, more sensible.
3. Japan central bank closed and Japan yen connected to Chinese central bank.
4. Kill everyone over 70

Because large pools of idle wealth are good for the broader economy.

Gr8 idea OP. Any additional wealth could be plowed into increasing overall production, driving down prices for all goods and bringing about a quasi-utopia.

But the cucks ere won't ever go for that xD

>Progressives are Right Wing

>Because large pools of idle wealth are good for the broader economy.

Large pools of idle wealth are exactly the thing that allows for expensive risky projects to happen.

Switch the salaries of teachers, with salaries of politicians. That way people who get into politics don't do it for the money, and teachers get paid more which creates more competition and thus better teachers.

>far-right ideas welcome here as well
> as well
So you are a commie. So why did you suggest a maximum rather than a minimum I'm curious.

So i proposed nationalizing one industry,not like there are a lot of small business heavy arms manufactors, is this going to stifle growth?

>$350k annual maximum personal income

cant they just make an llc and transfer all of their money there?

I personally think gold should count but houses shouldn't because people are being hired/contracted to build them thus actually trickling down wealth.

DELET. the minimum wage. It would literally solve the immigration/crime problems in a day.

1. explain the economic effect of marathons, though I agree all marathoners are annoying
2. sure, why not?
3.How would Japan be affected by chinese currency manipulation?
4.kek, awesome

get rid of fiat and go back to the gold standard

>is this going to stifle growth?

The more often the government makes moves like this, the more afraid business owners are going to be to own businesses. So the answer is yes, it will to some degree.

How much it will stifle growth is anybody's guess.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but moves like that should be saved for things that HAVE to be nationalized... rather than things that "we want" to be nationalized.

not a commie, syndicalist
minimum income has no or ill effect without government controls on business

of course, there would be many loopholes to this in the current system...hardly anyone owns a business privately anymore

>I personally think gold should count but houses shouldn't because people are being hired/contracted to build them thus actually trickling down wealth.

So what's going to happen is, mega rich people buy up all the houses, and the price of housing will skyrocket.

The thing with housing is that typically the land alone costs more than the land with the house on it. When you buy a house, you're really buying land.
This will end up being great for people who already own land, and very terrible for people who don't

1. Marathon running reduces the need/want to create babies. Low birth rate is bad for the economy.
3. China has better economist than Japan. China has a much better business attitude.

WTF i hate marathons now

>syndicalist
why would a syndicalist propose a cap on income?
>minimum income has no or ill effect without government controls on business
what?

>hardly anyone owns a business privately anymore

i dont think you know how anyone who makes over $350k makes money

After the S&L scandal, the government under Clinton gave the banks even more freedom, repealing glass/stegle

didn't seem to hurt them, in fact gave them so much freedom they took us directly to the 2008 housing crisis, where the financiers had to be temporarily nationalized again

Yeah to be honest I haven't completely thought the idea through, but I do think that steps need to be taken to encourage the incredibly wealthy to spend more. Some legal incentive to stop hoarding billions would be bretty gud

baby steps towards the ideal
minimum wage mostly damages small business, the big ones offset the loss by either raising prices or cutting costs

Nationalize banks. You can have 350k in a single bank account. The rest will be reinvested in public works bonds, education banks (scolarships) and such, so you will still possess the money but it will be put to good use.

Not by labor and not by wage
I get your point, (((they))) have written loopholes into everything, and rigged the game for their own benefit

Still doesn't make sense to put a cap on income I was just wondering how you justified your thinking. So in relation to minimum wage hurting small businesses, wouldnt a wage cap hurt big ones as well?

This is interesting, are you suggesting the banks be individually controlled, or should we implement central planning financially?

you do know that they reinvest most of their money into some kind of asset like an index fund and not just leave it lying there like you want to think

Maximum copyright 10 years on anything!

All government files released to public after 10 years except weapons and PII.

the damage i can see there is brain drain, where the top CEO's and such go to other countries.

no they make it from their assets which they founded themselves and took the risk investing in it

my justification is we devalue executives and management, thus increasing value for labor
or is this a false dichotomy?

most of these folks are playing the game with inherited money, they didn't earnit
>Rockofeller
>Rothschild
>Walton
etc

>nationalize defense contractors

You think we're the bad guys, but it's the USG fucking around with the requirements all the time that drives up cost.

"Muh electronics need to survive in a storage container that swings from minus 50 F to positive 300 F for 50 years"

how does releasing govt documents help the economy?

I'm with you on copyright, that shit is ridiculous

>the government under Clinton gave the banks even more freedom, repealing glass/stegle
>didn't seem to hurt them, in fact gave them so much freedom they took us directly to the 2008 housing crisis, where the financiers had to be temporarily nationalized again

This is propaganda though. The reason the 2008 crash happened is because banks were forced by the government to take on bad risks at low interests (blacks/poor). Many many of the bad risks piled up, and there wasn't enough money to pay off the debt. Thus economy crashed.

You will say that I am telling you propaganda as well, but there it is.

except youre talking about anyone who makes over $350k which are just normal people who know how basic economics and mortgages work

No human needs more than 350k to live a prosperous life.

Studies have shown that 75k is the benchmark for happiness. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.

Nope, don't think they are bad guys, just that their self-interest is in direct conflict with the self-interest of normal folks everywhere
as President Eisenhower warned us.

Checked.

Banks should remain privatized. I heard that after Clinton, there was no national debt so there were things like transportation bonds that were raised, just to have something to invest in. And in 20 years that would be the best thing for the economy. National debt determines interest rates and control the world economy, so absent debt, the US govt. can guarantee a ROI on such things as transportation and infrastructure bonds instead. The same could go for education, space, and such. So, people in the existing system can choose to invest in NASA (historically $11 ROI per $1 invested)

Also, all public works should be subcontracted: govts should do environmental assessments, provide guidelines, and then have private corps do things in a competitive bidding system, instead of unqualified and inexperienced state workers.

2008 is way too big of a topic for this thread, but there are a lot of ways to look at what happened.
Most blame the banks, and I think you are oversimplifying, as am I, but I say the system is to blame, because people had to maximize profits for their companies in the short term, or they would lose their jobs.

Encouraging effective oversight from an informed populace lowers overall government expendature and lowers tax needed.

>I heard that after Clinton, there was no national debt

yeah you're a fucking retard

We are already moving towards that. Check out
FBO.gov
want to sell machine guns to the government? Just need a license
You can also see when the govt is moving arms and another infrastructure to an area.
It was only a couple of months ago I saw the bureau of indian affairs place a large order for small arms and riot control....wonder what that was for?

>BTFO

Agree with the sentiment, but is 10 years a short enough time frame to ensure accountability?

t. liberal arts professor

wow its like theres something other than "happiness" that drives people and makes them want to be better than everyone else

Dunno it was more an easy number that also covers any RnD/copyright.

>You can have 350k in a single bank account

okay ill just open a vanguard account, register an llc in my name, or let some other offshore bank handle my money

>thinking deficit and debt are the same thing
inb4 pretending to be retarded

I think there would be a difference between personal income and business profits.

it would be like a Certificate of Deposit: higher yield for the longer you put your money in. Or like an IRA, so that there is a penalty for withdrawing early.

The best investment is in infrastructure and education, it takes about 20 years time to show And industry would take off by that time, meaning your other investments would, too.

Otherwise, enjoy your new poo in the loo while your money is safe in the caymans.

Well, there was talk of infrastructure bonds being raised before Bush. That much I'm aware of.

I meant for the politicians.
I say it should be just shorter than one election cycle, so the public can be informed before voting for an incumbent

5,000 ppl in house congress
i read somewhere (stoner days) were supposed to have that many

this would reign in the administrative state too - delegation would be used less as congress could be on the commitees? or is delegation constitution mandate?

be me
have a pile of source codes owned by ten different multinational corporations
cant combine them into one cool app because law

i need some java. errr coffee! dont sue me!

>it would be like a Certificate of Deposit: higher yield for the longer you put your money in. Or like an IRA, so that there is a penalty for withdrawing early.

maybe you should stop talking out of your ass and research how index funds or even how the stock market functions, you know basic things that should be talk in public education so it doesnt create idiots spewing out retarded shit

the point also was that you could easily circumvent a limit to a personal bank account since most people who do actually make money have an llc tied to it so its already not even a personal account. unless youre saying you want to limit the bank account of all companies which would pretty retarded

>The best investment is in infrastructure and education, it takes about 20 years time to show And industry would take off by that time, meaning your other investments would, too.

t. economically illiterate

Anyone gets the chance but you have to fully complete it. Remember it's 10X harder and we remove the liberal arts majors. There will still be "easier" degrees but it will eliminate almost all non-whites instantly.

There's people that can't even finish degrees as they are. If we make it 10X harder we will be fine. Anybody that already has a degree and go to this program as well for free.

It seriously would be fine. People think if we do this, the world will end. Spics, niggers, and many whites always drop out from degrees that already exist because they can't commit to something that's longer than a year or two. It really won't. It would actually improve the intelligence of everyone and help society realize education is important.

I don't know who funds it.

Are you talking about increasing the number of representatives?

>Anyone gets the chance but you have to fully complete it.

Literally a chance.
Not 10 chances, not 5. If you fail, you're out and you have to pay your way.

I know how indexed funds work. And I'm not talkign about whether people can circumvent tax laws: I'm saying that it would be to everyone's advantage if governments raised non debt-based bonds.

And learn how to spell.

>I know how indexed funds work. And I'm not talkign about whether people can circumvent tax laws: I'm saying that it would be to everyone's advantage if governments raised non debt-based bonds.

then let the government do that on its own and let the private investors do what they want without placing dumb arbitrary limits on them

> And I'm not talkign

And learn how to spell.

But, if we must have minorities in our water park, wouldn't we rather have them educated and actually contributing something other than hip-slop to our society?
Doesn't that just enforce their slave mentality, and make them even more useless?

I was talking about the transperency. But yeah maybe some departments but not all. Some should be accessable immediately.

Yup there's a issue in some industries that there's patents on old software and you can't even change it because the company has gone under. The patents are owned by trolls etc.

>Source code should be available for anything being used/purchased by the government.

yes

yeah, obviously intelligence and some military records have to be kept secret
anything political, tho should be open season

>op is retard
Nonetheless, raise minimum wade to $15, allow productions to continue I foreign countries, improve educational system, regulate economy. Decrease education costs, give free national health insurance, but give options for private. Make white collar jobs more common in us, and slowly being back manufacturing.

Alright, I'll bite:
PROS
>more seats mean the possibilites of additional parties gaining traction, allowing the expression of more radical viewpoints and weakening the 2-party system
>more members means less ability to form coalitions, blocks, filibuster, etc
CONS
>less competition for seats could make the incumbents stronger by default, as they are more recognizable faces in the sea of candidates
>gerrymandering could get out of control

>>Nationalize all military contractors

Not a bad idea. Make mil-indust. complex private companies illegal. Would cut right down on all the lobbying.

How many times does a planned economy need to fail for you guys to get it?

>Great way to scare every successful person, or at least all of their wealth, from the country

thats the idea, when you find the nation they flee to you blow the shit out of the nation next to that one flooding them with murderous refugees, when the refugees are done murder killing them you drone the refugees and scoop up the loot. easy