Tag Archives: Economics

Billionaires Shouldn’t Exist – And Here’s Why That’s Not Radical

Posted on by
Reply

When New York State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani recently declared, “I don’t believe we should have billionaires,” he wasn’t indulging in empty populism, he was articulating a moral position whose time has come. The existence of billionaires, in an era defined by mass homelessness, food insecurity, and climate collapse, is not merely unfortunate, it is an ethical indictment of the systems that allowed them to exist in the first place.

Mamdani joins a growing chorus of progressive thinkers, economists, and ethicists who argue that no individual should have the right, or the capacity, to accumulate and hoard a billion dollars or more. This isn’t about envy or political expediency. It’s about the increasingly clear understanding that billionaire wealth isn’t just excessive, it’s extractive, destabilizing, and morally indefensible.

Billionaire Wealth Is Built on Exploitation
To amass a billion dollars, one must either inherit extreme wealth or systematically profit from the undervalued labour of others. Most billionaires, especially those in tech and finance, profit not through invention or hard work, but through ownership of capital, tax avoidance, and labor suppression. As economist Thomas Piketty demonstrated in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, returns on capital consistently outpace economic growth, meaning that wealth accumulates faster than wages rise, thus enriching the few while immiserating the many (Piketty, 2014).

This is not a bug in capitalism; it’s a feature. While billionaires build personal rockets and collect rare yachts, tens of millions lack clean water, reliable housing, or access to medical care. The wealthiest 1% of the global population now owns nearly half of the world’s wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just 2% (Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, 2022).

Morality Demands Redistribution, Not Charity
Some argue that billionaires are philanthropists who “give back.” But ethical redistribution is not about generosity, it’s about justice. Charity, even when well-intentioned, is discretionary. It allows the wealthy to decide which causes are “worthy,” often with tax write-offs and public accolades. It is fundamentally undemocratic.

As philosopher Peter Singer wrote in his essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so (Singer, 1972). Billionaires could eradicate global hunger, fund universal education, and fight climate change many times over. That they do not is a moral failure, one built into the very logic of their class interests.

The Billionaire Class Undermines Democracy
More than just a matter of inequality, billionaires represent a profound threat to democracy. They use their wealth to shape elections, control media narratives, lobby governments, and suppress movements that challenge their power. As Mamdani put it, they spend “millions of dollars” to influence outcomes that serve their continued dominance. That’s not civic participation, it’s oligarchy.

This is evident in the staggering political spending from figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the Koch brothers, whose influence often counters popular will on issues like climate regulation, taxation, and labor rights. When money becomes speech, those with the most money speak loudest, and everyone else is drowned out.

Making Billionaires Illegal Is Not Extremism – It’s Ethics
To say that billionaires should be “illegal” is not to suggest rounding them up and seizing their mansions. It means creating systems in which it is structurally impossible to accumulate wealth beyond a certain point. This might include steeply progressive taxation, strict inheritance limits, and aggressive corporate regulation. As proposed by economists like Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, a global wealth tax would not only generate trillions in public funds, but also dismantle the foundations of permanent wealth aristocracy (Zucman & Saez, 2019).

When Mamdani says billionaires “shouldn’t exist,” he invites us to imagine a society where wealth is shared, not hoarded; where innovation is public, not privatized; and where dignity isn’t auctioned to the highest bidder. This vision isn’t utopian, it’s already partly realized in countries with higher levels of equality and lower poverty rates, such as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

A Future Without Billionaires Is a Future With Hope
We are standing at a crossroads: ecological collapse looms, fascism festers, and inequality grows by the hour. Allowing the existence of billionaires in this context is more than complacent, it’s complicit. As the climate crisis worsens and democratic institutions strain under the weight of elite influence, we must ask: how much longer can we afford billionaires?

The answer, increasingly, is: not one more day.

Sources
• BBC News. (2025). Zohran Mamdani says he doesn’t believe that we should have billionaires. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge57k5p4yo
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
• Credit Suisse. (2022). Global Wealth Report 2022. https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
• Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs.
• Zucman, G., & Saez, E. (2019). The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mr. Carney, Let’s Be Bold and Smart: A Revenue-Neutral Universal Basic Income Is Within Reach

Posted on by
Reply

The election of Mark Carney as Canada’s new Prime Minister marks more than a changing of the guard, it signals a chance to transform how we think about economic justice, social policy, and the role of government in a post-pandemic, post-carbon, AI-disrupted world. Yet, if this new Liberal administration wants to do more than manage decline or tinker at the edges, it must champion Universal Basic Income (UBI), and it must do so within this first term.

To skeptics, the usual pushback is cost. “We can’t afford it.” But what if I told you we can, without adding a cent to the deficit?

A bold, revenue-neutral UBI is not only possible, it’s the smart, responsible, and forward-thinking choice. It would simplify our bloated patchwork of social programs, reduce inequality, and stabilize the economy, all while respecting fiscal realities. Carney, with his reputation for monetary prudence and social conscience, is uniquely positioned to make this happen.

The Case for UBI, Now More Than Ever
We live in precarious times. AI and automation are displacing jobs once thought secure. The gig economy has redefined work for an entire generation, offering flexibility but no stability. Climate change is reshaping our industries, economies, and communities. And regional inequalities, from rural depopulation to urban housing crises, are deepening social division.

UBI provides a powerful, simple solution: a no-strings-attached income that ensures every Canadian can meet their basic needs, make real choices, and live with dignity. No complex eligibility criteria. No stigma. Just a stable foundation for all.

This isn’t a call for endless spending. This is a plan for smart reinvestment, one that replaces outdated, fragmented systems with a coherent, efficient, and humane approach.

Revenue-Neutral UBI: A Practical Path
The key to political and economic viability is fiscal neutrality. Here’s how we get there:

Streamline the Social Safety Net
Our current welfare architecture is costly, overlapping, and often punitive. We propose replacing core income support programs, provincial social assistance, EI for low-wage workers, and a range of targeted income-tested tax credits, with a single, universal UBI. This simplification reduces administrative duplication and restores dignity to recipients.

Rethink OAS and GIS
These seniors’ programs already operate as a basic income for the elderly. By integrating them into a universal model, with UBI replacing these benefits for most, but supplemented by needs-based top-ups for seniors with unique medical or housing costs, we ensure fairness without duplication.

Restructure (Not Eliminate) CPP
CPP remains essential as a pension earned through contribution, but some recalibration of contribution thresholds and benefit tiers, alongside UBI, can reduce reliance on inflated public pensions to cover basic needs, while preserving the contributory principle.

Modest, Targeted Tax Reform
To close the revenue loop, introduce a small surtax (e.g., 2%) on individual incomes over $150,000, and slightly increase capital gains inclusion rates. These are not radical measures, they simply ask the wealthiest Canadians to help ensure every citizen has a secure foundation. For 95% of taxpayers, no increase would be necessary.

Numerous economic models (including work by Evelyn Forget, UBC’s Kevin Milligan, and CCPA researchers) show that a well-designed UBI can be nearly or entirely self-funding when paired with smart policy adjustments like these.

Political Opportunity and Liberal Legacy
Prime Minister Carney doesn’t need to look far for historical inspiration. Universal healthcare, bilingualism, the Charter, these were all ambitious Liberal achievements once considered politically risky and fiscally daunting, yet they reshaped Canada.

UBI can be his legacy. It would resonate across voter blocs: rural Canadians seeking stability, urban millennials burdened by debt and housing costs, women and caregivers locked out of full-time work, and gig workers with no safety net. It’s a unifying policy in a fragmented nation.

Moreover, by leading with a revenue-neutral model, Carney can neutralize opposition from deficit hawks and centrists, while winning support from social democrats, Indigenous leaders, environmentalists, and the entrepreneurial class alike.

A Step-by-Step Roadmap

  • Launch a National UBI Task Force in the first 100 days, chaired by experts in economics, social policy, and Indigenous governance.
  • Table a UBI White Paper by the end of Year 1, outlining fiscal models, legal changes, and implementation scenarios.
  • Pilot the program in a representative region (e.g., Northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, or an urban-rural mix) with independent evaluation.
  • Introduce legislation in Year 3, with phased implementation beginning before the 2029 election.

This is not pie-in-the-sky. This is responsible governance meeting bold vision.

The Values We Must Uphold
UBI is about more than money, it’s about modernizing our social contract. It says to every Canadian: you matter. You are not a cost, a case file, or a problem to manage. You are a citizen with rights, worth, and potential.

Mr. Carney, you’ve spoken eloquently about “values-based capitalism” and “inclusive transitions.” UBI is the policy vehicle that delivers on those values. And by designing it to be fiscally neutral, you can bring the skeptics along without compromising ambition.

Now is the time to lead not just with caution, but with courage. We can afford Universal Basic Income, not in spite of economic constraints, but because of them.

Let’s stop managing poverty. Let’s start guaranteeing security. Let’s build a Canada where no one is left behind.

The Quiet Leader: Alberta’s Hidden Role in North America’s Prosperity

Posted on by
Reply

In an era of mounting economic uncertainty, geopolitical tension, and post-pandemic recovery, Alberta has quietly emerged as North America’s top subnational performer in a critical and often overlooked metric: the Human Development Index (HDI). For policy watchers and socio-economic analysts, this isn’t just a number to file under “interesting trivia.” Alberta’s position at the top of the HDI rankings among all Canadian provinces, American states, and Mexican territories marks a significant case study in the relationship between natural resource wealth, public policy, and long-term human development outcomes.

As of the most recent figures, Alberta boasts an HDI score of 0.947, narrowly edging out perennial Canadian leaders like British Columbia and Ontario, and standing shoulder to shoulder with wealthy U.S. states like Massachusetts (0.956). The HDI, developed by the United Nations, is a composite measure of life expectancy, education, and per capita income. It is often used as a more holistic gauge of prosperity than GDP alone, as it reflects not only how much wealth a region generates, but how that wealth translates into actual well-being.

Alberta’s strong showing may come as a surprise to some, especially given the narrative often pushed about the province being overly reliant on fossil fuels or politically out of step with the rest of the country, but the truth is more nuanced. Alberta’s prosperity, particularly in the past two decades, has allowed it to make significant investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Its high-income levels have supported strong public services, when policy has aligned with long-term development goals, and its young, well-educated workforce has given the province a demographic advantage. This is not to ignore Alberta’s volatility or the challenges of a boom-and-bust economy, but rather to acknowledge that, when things align, the outcomes can be extraordinary.

Education is a particular strength. Alberta consistently ranks among the top in Canada, and even internationally, in literacy, math, and science scores, according to the OECD’s PISA results. Its public healthcare system, while strained like others across Canada, remains broadly effective and accessible. Meanwhile, high wages, especially in the energy and trades sectors, boost the per capita income metric significantly, even when adjusted for cost of living.

Of course, HDI doesn’t capture everything. Alberta’s Indigenous communities, rural populations, and recent immigrants often experience very different outcomes than the provincial average. Income inequality, climate vulnerability, and questions around economic diversification remain pressing concerns, but as an overall measure of human potential realized, Alberta’s HDI score offers a compelling counter-narrative to those who dismiss it as a one-note petro-state.

The implications of Alberta’s top-tier HDI rating should not be understated. For federal policymakers, it underscores the importance of regional economic engines in lifting national development indicators. For other provinces and territories, it poses a question: what mix of resources, governance, and vision leads to sustained human flourishing? And for Alberta itself, it’s a reminder that the province’s legacy need not be only pipelines and politics, it can also be about how to build a society where people truly thrive.

Carney’s Distinction: Spending vs Investing

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Carney’s recent remarks at the housing development announcement have sparked an intriguing debate on fiscal responsibility that could well shape our nation’s political discourse this election season. In a climate where every policy decision is scrutinized, Carney’s clear differentiation between mere spending and genuine investment stands out as both a pragmatic and visionary approach.

At the event, Carney took the podium with a measured resolve, declaring, “This is not merely spending.” The announcement, a multi-billion-dollar initiative aimed at creating thousands of affordable homes, was not just a government outlay but, as Carney argued, a strategic investment in the country’s future. He reminded us that spending provides short-term relief, a temporary boost that often fades without leaving a lasting impact. In contrast, investing builds physical assets, from homes that shelter citizens to infrastructure that drives long-term economic growth.

During the press conference, a journalist pressed Carney for clarity: “But what exactly distinguishes spending from investing, especially in these turbulent economic times?” Carney’s response was incisive. “Consider this housing initiative. If we were simply spending, we’d be issuing subsidies or providing temporary relief. That money would dissipate, leaving us to confront the same issues a year or two down the line. What we’re doing here is building assets that not only meet immediate needs, but also stabilize our market for decades to come.” His explanation resonated, emphasizing that when the government borrows money for tangible investments, it’s laying the groundwork for future prosperity, rather than just adding to the current debt burden.

Critics have raised valid concerns about increasing deficits, asking, “But what about government deficits? Isn’t this just adding to our debt load?” Carney acknowledged the worry, noting that borrowing for short-term fixes often leads to a perilous cycle of debt. However, he argued, borrowing to invest in enduring assets, such as new housing, yields dividends in the form of job creation, improved living standards, and a robust, resilient economy. “Debt for spending is dangerous because it leaves nothing behind,” he stated. “Debt for investment, however, is different. When we invest in projects that drive economic growth, we’re not just managing debt, we’re transforming it into a catalyst for long-term stability.”

As someone who has witnessed countless policy debates, I find Carney’s distinction particularly refreshing. In an era dominated by immediate solutions, and short-lived political gains, his perspective challenges leaders to think beyond the next election cycle. The choice, as Carney laid it out, is stark: Will our policymakers continue to opt for fleeting spending that merely masks underlying problems, or will they embrace investments that secure a prosperous future?

This is more than a fiscal debate, it’s a much needed, fundamental question about our nation’s priorities. As voters and citizens, Canadians must demand that our leaders consider the long-term impacts of their decisions. The current housing development initiative, if executed wisely, is a testament to the power of strategic investment over transient spending, such as tax cuts for the rich, or removing the carbon tax. It promises to deliver not just immediate relief, but a foundation upon which a stronger, more resilient economy can be built. Again, this goes beyond the usual election cycle promises, and short-term thinking, that politicians usually indulge in, to get the votes they need to stay in power. 

In these uncertain times, Carney’s message is a timely reminder that every dollar spent should be scrutinized for its future value. As the election nears, his call to invest in our collective future rather than merely spending for today is one that deserves our full attention, and, perhaps, our support.

A Commonwealth Without Borders: The Future of Free Movement?

Posted on by
Reply

The idea of free movement between Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK has gained increasing attention in recent years. Often discussed under the banner of CANZUK, the proposal envisions a system similar to the European Union’s freedom of movement, allowing citizens of these four nations to live and work freely across their borders. At first glance, the case for such an arrangement seems compelling. These countries share deep historical ties, legal and political traditions rooted in the British system, and comparable economic standards. Advocates argue that freer movement would not only reinforce cultural and economic connections but also provide practical benefits, such as addressing labor shortages and strengthening diplomatic relationships.

The idea is not without precedent. Australia and New Zealand already enjoy a form of free movement under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA), which has allowed their citizens to live and work in either country with relatively few restrictions for decades. This arrangement has functioned smoothly, with both nations benefiting from a flexible labor market and strong cross-border ties. Extending a similar model to include Canada and the UK, proponents argue, would be a natural evolution of these existing relationships. Many supporters also point to the European Union’s Schengen Zone as proof that such agreements can work on a larger scale, allowing economic migration without overwhelming social systems.

However, beyond the rhetoric of shared heritage and common values, the proposal faces considerable economic and political challenges. While these nations are broadly comparable in terms of economic development, there are still notable differences in wages, cost of living, and employment opportunities. Australia and Canada, for instance, consistently rank among the most desirable destinations for migrants due to their higher wages and strong job markets. Without proper safeguards, this could lead to an uneven flow of migration, with workers from the UK and New Zealand gravitating towards the more prosperous economies of Canada and Australia, potentially creating labor shortages in their home countries.

Another critical concern is the impact on housing and infrastructure. Canada and Australia are already grappling with severe housing affordability crises, particularly in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney, and Melbourne. An influx of migrants, even from culturally similar nations, could put additional strain on these markets, driving up housing prices and exacerbating shortages. While proponents argue that increased migration could also help address labor shortages in construction and other essential industries, critics warn that these benefits may take years to materialize, while the immediate impact on housing demand would be felt almost instantly.

The political landscape also complicates the feasibility of such a proposal. While public opinion polls have shown reasonable support for closer ties between these nations, immigration remains a contentious issue in all four. Brexit was, in part, driven by the UK’s desire to regain control over its borders, and many voters would likely resist any proposal that reintroduces a form of free movement, even if limited to Commonwealth nations. In Canada and Australia, immigration policy is a key electoral issue, and governments are unlikely to relinquish control over who enters their borders. National security concerns also play a role, as harmonizing immigration and vetting policies across four different governments would be a bureaucratic challenge.

Despite these obstacles, the concept of closer mobility between these nations is unlikely to disappear. While full free movement may be politically unrealistic in the near term, policymakers could explore intermediate steps, such as streamlined work visas, mutual residency pathways, or limited agreements for specific professions. Such measures would allow for greater mobility without the risks of an uncontrolled migration flow. Ultimately, while the dream of a CANZUK free movement zone remains an enticing one, its success will depend on whether political leaders can balance economic opportunity with the realities of national interests and public sentiment.

Economists Are Finally Catching Up – But Will Politicians Listen?

Posted on by
Reply

For years, many of us outside the ivory tower have watched economists confidently explain the world using tidy models that don’t quite match reality. Now, it seems even the experts are starting to wake up. Nobel laureate Angus Deaton, a man who has spent over five decades shaping economic thought, recently admitted that he’s rethinking much of what he once believed. In his essay, Rethinking My Economics, he acknowledges something the rest of us have known for a long time; economics, as it has been practiced, has ignored some fundamental truths about power, fairness, and the actual lives of working people.

One of his biggest realizations is that power—not just free markets or technological change—determines wages, prices, and opportunities. The old economic story said that workers got paid what they were worth, and if wages were low, it was because of “supply and demand.” Deaton now recognizes that corporate power has a much bigger role than economists have admitted. Employers dictate pay, not some invisible hand. This is what workers and unions have been saying for generations.

Speaking of unions, Deaton now regrets his past views on them. Like many economists, he once saw unions as a drag on efficiency. Now he sees them as a necessary counterbalance to corporate power. He even links their decline to some of today’s biggest problems—like stagnant wages and the rise of populism. Those of us who watched good union jobs disappear over the decades could have told him that.

Deaton also revisits the supposed wonders of free trade and globalization. He used to believe they were unquestionably good for everyone, lifting millions out of poverty worldwide, and now he wonders if the benefits of global trade have been overstated, especially for North American workers. It turns out that shipping jobs overseas and gutting local industries does have consequences. Again, not news to the factory workers and small-town business owners who saw their livelihoods disappear.

Even on immigration, Deaton has had a rethink. While he still sees its benefits, he admits he hadn’t fully considered its effects on low-wage workers. Many working-class folks—especially in industries like construction and manufacturing—have long argued that an influx of labor can drive down wages. For decades, economists dismissed these concerns as uninformed or even xenophobic. Now, Deaton is realizing that, actually, those workers had a point.

One of the biggest flaws in modern economics, Deaton argues, is its obsession with efficiency. The field has spent too much time focusing on what is “optimal” in theoretical terms while ignoring what is fair. Efficiency is great if you’re a CEO looking at profit margins, but for ordinary people trying to build stable lives, fairness matters just as much—if not more.

Perhaps most importantly, Deaton now believes that economics needs to learn from other disciplines. Historians, sociologists, and philosophers have long been tackling questions about inequality, power, and justice that economists are only now beginning to take seriously. Maybe if more economists had paid attention to those fields earlier, we wouldn’t be in such a mess now.

Which brings us to Mark Carney. Once the golden boy of central banking, Carney is now stepping into the political arena with the Canadian Federal Liberals, promising policies that sound progressive, but still carry the scent of Bay Street. The big question is: will his economic approach reflect the real-world reckoning that Deaton and others are finally having, or will it be more of the same old technocratic tinkering? Carney has talked a lot about inclusive growth and climate action, but will he acknowledge—like Deaton now does—that power imbalances, corporate dominance, and the decline of unions are at the heart of inequality? Will he push policies that actually shift power back to workers, or just dress up neoliberal economics with a few social programs? If Carney truly embraces Deaton’s new thinking, we might see a real departure from the old economic playbook, but if he sticks to the well-worn path of market-friendly “solutions,” it’ll just be another round of the same policies that got us here in the first place.

It’s refreshing to see someone like Deaton openly question his own past beliefs. It’s a rare thing for a leading economist to admit they’ve been wrong, but for those of us who have lived through the consequences of these flawed economic theories, starting with the years of Reagan and Thatcher, the real question is: Why did it take them so long to figure this out? And now that they have—will the politicians actually do anything about it?

Canada’s Potential Economic Transformation: From Raw Commodities to Value-Added Manufacturing

Posted on by
Reply

Canada has long been defined by its vast natural resources, exporting raw commodities like oil, lumber, minerals, and agricultural products to its largest trading partner, the United States. This resource-based economy has created prosperity, but left Canada vulnerable to global market fluctuations and overreliance on one major partner. Imagine, however, a seismic shift where Canada halts raw commodity exports to the U.S. and reorients its economy toward value-added manufacturing, inspired by Germany’s renowned industrial model. Such a transformation could redefine Canada’s role in the global economy, fostering innovation, diversification, and resilience.

The cornerstone of this strategy would be transitioning away from the sale of unprocessed resources. Instead of exporting crude oil, Canada could refine it domestically into high-quality petrochemical products, such as plastics and specialty chemicals. Similarly, rather than selling raw lumber, the country could invest in producing engineered wood products, furniture, and prefabricated housing materials. By processing these materials at home, Canada would capture greater value from its resources, create high-skilled jobs, and reduce economic dependency on the United States.

The shift to manufacturing would require a robust focus on innovation, supported by substantial investment in research and development (R&D). Germany’s manufacturing success is largely driven by its Mittelstand—small and medium-sized enterprises specializing in precision engineering, machinery, and high-quality goods. Canada could emulate this approach by fostering clusters of specialized industries in areas such as green energy technology, robotics, and medical devices. Government incentives, tax breaks, and public-private partnerships could nurture these industries and position Canada as a global leader in advanced manufacturing.

Education and workforce development would play a crucial role in this transformation. Canada’s universities and technical colleges would need to prioritize programs in engineering, technology, and applied sciences. Skilled trades would also need to be elevated in prestige and supported through apprenticeships and certification programs, ensuring a steady supply of talent for emerging industries. Drawing inspiration from Germany’s dual education system, which integrates classroom learning with practical experience, Canada could create a workforce tailored to the demands of a high-tech manufacturing economy.

While transitioning to a manufacturing-based economy, Canada would also strengthen its global trade relationships, reducing reliance on the U.S. market. Trade agreements with the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) nations, and emerging markets in Africa and Asia would be leveraged to expand exports of Canadian-made goods. This diversification would provide stability in the face of economic or political disruptions in any one region.

Environmental sustainability would underpin this economic transformation. With global demand shifting toward eco-friendly products, Canada’s manufacturing sector could focus on producing green technologies, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, and energy-efficient building materials. These industries would not only align with Canada’s climate commitments but also tap into growing markets worldwide.

However, such a dramatic shift would not be without challenges. Significant upfront investment, trade tensions with the U.S., and resistance from established industries would need to be managed. Yet the long-term benefits—a diversified, innovative, and resilient economy—would far outweigh the short-term obstacles.

By embracing value-added manufacturing, Canada could break free from its resource-dependent past and secure a prosperous, sustainable future. This shift would allow the country to redefine its economic identity, becoming not just a supplier of raw materials but a global leader in high-quality, innovative goods.

Universal Basic Income – Managing Supply and Demand

Posted on by
Reply

Managing both the supply and demand sides of the economy is critical when considering the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). A well-structured UBI program has the potential to stimulate economic growth and reduce poverty but requires careful planning to avoid inflationary pressures or supply shortages that could undermine its benefits.

On the demand side, UBI directly increases people’s purchasing power by providing a fixed income, thereby boosting consumer spending. Households are better able to meet their basic needs, such as food, housing, and healthcare, while also increasing discretionary spending on non-essential goods and services, including entertainment, travel, and retail. This injection of purchasing power can invigorate various sectors of the economy and drive broader economic activity. However, this surge in demand poses risks. If supply chains cannot adjust to meet the increased demand, inflationary pressures may emerge, especially in sectors with limited capacity, such as housing. For example, stagnant housing supply coupled with heightened demand could lead to skyrocketing rents and property prices. Similarly, inadequate production in critical areas like groceries or energy could result in shortages, exacerbating economic instability. Without safeguards, landlords or businesses may exploit increased consumer spending by raising rents or essential costs like transportation, effectively eroding the benefits of UBI. Rental controls and stable public transportation costs are therefore essential to prevent the market from absorbing the additional income without improving overall living standards.

The supply side of the economy, therefore, plays a pivotal role in determining the success of UBI. Policies must be implemented to ensure that businesses and industries can scale up production to meet heightened demand. Investments in infrastructure, energy production, and manufacturing are necessary to expand capacity and prevent bottlenecks. Labor market dynamics must also be addressed, as UBI may lead some workers to leave low-paying or undesirable jobs, potentially causing shortages in essential industries. To counteract this, governments can support workforce adaptation through investments in automation, technological innovation, and targeted training programs. Additionally, UBI may encourage individuals to pursue entrepreneurial ventures or invest in their education, potentially fostering long-term productivity and economic growth.

Balancing these dynamics requires deliberate strategies. Sustainable funding mechanisms, such as taxes on wealth, corporate profits, or consumption, are essential to finance UBI without undermining fiscal stability. These taxation strategies can also help mitigate inequality by discouraging excessive accumulation or speculative practices that drive economic disparities. To address potential price spikes, temporary measures such as subsidies or price controls on essential goods may be necessary, particularly during the initial rollout of UBI. A phased introduction of UBI, starting with smaller-scale trials, allows supply chains and industries time to adjust, minimizing the risk of economic shocks.

Ultimately, a successful UBI policy requires coordination between the demand and supply sides of the economy. On the demand side, increased consumer spending has the potential to stimulate growth and alleviate poverty. On the supply side, proactive measures must ensure that production and labor markets can adapt to meet the new economic realities without triggering inflation or shortages. By managing these elements in tandem, and by instituting measures like rental control and stable transportation costs to protect consumers, UBI can create a more balanced and inclusive economy, fostering resilience and shared prosperity.

Limitarianism – A Balanced Way Forward 

Posted on by
Reply

With the US oligarchy taking over the White House next year, it’s time to look at what we need to develop to counter the mess and the broken economy they will leave post-Trump’s presidency. Philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, a leading proponent of limitarianism, argues that beyond a certain threshold, wealth does not significantly improve individual well-being, and may cause harm to others by perpetuating inequality and reducing collective welfare. While not a new idea, with historical thinkers such as Plato and JP Morgan espousing similar concepts, perhaps it times to further explore limitarianism.

Limitarianism is a philosophical and political concept that advocates setting limits on individual/family wealth to promote social equality, reduce harm caused by extreme wealth accumulation, and ensure fair distribution of resources. It is rooted in ethical considerations about justice, sufficiency, human welfare, and a sustainable environment. 

The philosophy suggests that extreme wealth is morally problematic, especially in societies where poverty and inequality persist. Excess wealth could be better used to address social issues like hunger, education, or healthcare. The accumulation of excessive wealth can lead to an imbalance of power, undermining democratic institutions. Wealthy individuals may exert disproportionate influence over political systems, media, and public policies. How many times have we seen this in western-style G7 democracies in recent years, where the right do everything they can to protect their wealth and power, while working people can’t pay for the basics of housing, food and transportation? 

Supporters of limitarianism argue for changes in taxation on income, inheritance, and wealth to cap extreme fortunes, along with a redistribution of excess wealth to fund programs like Universal Basic Income (UBI), ensuring a safety net for all citizens. Critics argue that wealth limits could stifle innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, while curtailing personal liberties, and especially the right to accumulate multi-generational wealth.

While enforcing wealth caps, and managing global disparities in wealth distribution can be challenging in practice, limitarianism is gaining traction in debates on wealth inequality, especially in light of growing disparities between the ultra-rich and the rest of society. Movements advocating for wealth taxes and income redistribution often draw from limitarian principles to challenge the concentration of wealth and power.

As a leading advocate for limitarianism, Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is both unethical and harmful to democracy. She proposes a wealth cap of approximately €10 million, emphasizing that any surplus beyond what is needed for a flourishing life could be redirected toward societal challenges like the climate crisis or inequality. Where do you stand on this issue? For me, it seems like one possible set of mechanisms to help rebalance the redistribution of resources, while still supporting a western-style capitalist growth economy.