Yes but thats money that flows into 'industry', or retail, or production, hopefully creating a boom in industry, retail or production.
Only the meaningless kind. Barista grandgeneral or something. Management of managing everyones believes. CSR.
But you have a point there. If taxes are hiked up for middleclasses their 'individual dreams' might still not be realizable (lets say for most).
So lets look at approaches:
1: Tax people, create investment structures, create new sectors with growth potential, help everyone out that way - kinda. Also, maybe everyone gets healthcare out of it.
2: Stick to status quo, keep taxes low, take state investment money (currently because of COVID), that is "invented" (made up, but you can, because under COVID everyone is - so it doesnt impact your international competitiveness that much), and create more bullshit jobs with it (positions managing useless projects, preferably circularly, and that are only there for people to not revolt, or because the government asked you), and invest heavily into CSR. (CSR = bullshit, that the company cares about social impact at least equal to bottom line - literally lying to all your employees and everyone around, just so they feel better and dont revolt).
Which approach seems preferable.
I don't think so. More disposable income for the poor, so more leisure spending.
Germany raised minimum wage recently and the 'fallout' was - literally nothing (on the negative side). No higher jobless numbers, nothing. Now, that doesnt always have to work out that way - but it can.
But now employees cant sustain themselves. Even though they are working, so high social unrest potential. Your ideal society cant be one, where many people have to sustain on food stamp projects, even though they are working full time. Its called a 'floor' (raising the floor) for a reason.
Hey are we telling bedtime stories to each other, or looking at this statistically.
Yes, there is always an outlier somewhere. Why.
Here is the basic story on national debt: At one point some professor said debt to GDP ratio cant be higher than 70% or your economy will default. That then became IMF/World bank doctrine. Then some of his stundents found out, that his excel sheet was faulty.
Also - current US investments into the economy are huge (I think I heard a figure floating around that billionaires in the US gained an average of 10bn each during the COVID crisis), and this is possible, because everyone is increasing national debt during COVID.
At the same time, money for the state (even from private investors) is cheap as never before (Germanys interest rates for 10 year bonds were negative at one point (investors gave them money to take their money and promise to return it in 10 years)).
And all you want to do with this money - is... Better the borrowing conditions of future generations. No actual economic action for people on the ground.
Again - millenials havent seen sustained growth in their lifetime, 2/3 of jobs created are 'service the customer longtime' BS without perspective, you've maybe got an alltime high in joblessness after COVID-19, big investor money never reaches the economy on the ground in your own country, climate change might kill you if unadressed - and you want to do nothing about that?
National debt, usually is supposed to be inflated away. Not 'payed back' by everyone 'saving up'. What would china do with more money? What would private investors do with more investment capital. They already are facing a problem of having too much of it and too few 'investable opportunities' in western countries. They would invest more of it in india, china and mexico, and then? The US could borrow more of it again for future generations to do what?
Why are there sectors, where private investors don't invest but a state might? Usually, too much long term risk, or 'creating something' requires a political mandate. (F.e.: Climate change > everyone has to change their personal outlook and behavior a little > this needs to be induced through political change).
Last edited by notimp,
