" It means there is less disposable income in circulation. " Yes, which is why a negative income tax rate probably makes sense. However, you still have to work for it.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected] > > wrote: > > There are levels of socialism which increasingly make more sense. >> > > When people talk about "socialism," there's a huge spectrum of > possibilities concerning what is intended. One one side you have the old > style authoritarianism that was Soviet communism. On the other you have > intelligent programs undertaken in the Netherlands and Switzerland > (bastions of capitalism) as well as the Scandinavian countries. Branding > all of these approaches as "socialism" and expecting people to be cowed > into silence is obscurantist. It works for a subset of the US population > who react reflexively and viscerally to anything that is different from > what they were inculcated to believe. But for anyone who cares about > thinking through things, it's clear that a more nuanced approach, which > looks at the specific details of specific programs, rather than lurching > upon hearing certain keywords, is what is needed for intelligent economic > policy. > > >> How that socialism is implemented is up for debate, but higher levels of >> automation are clearly making more and more people irrelevant economically. >> > > And this is bad for capitalism. It means there is less disposable income > in circulation. It is ironic that capitalism must occasionally be saved > from (Austrian school) capitalists. > > Eric > >
