What could governments do to encourage a real transition?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 12 Apr 2012, 12:28

Here's another aphorism I like:

"You have to know a little, in order conceal that you know nothing".

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Apr 2012, 15:23

OK, in the absence of TEQs/C&S, these are some of the things that ooze slowly through my head when I should be working (bearing in mind some of these are Ireland-centric and some could be considered trendily off-topic

):

All fuel (including aviation and commercial fuel) taxed the same rate; get rid of motor tax. It's basically a tax on motorised travelling, I suppose.

An end to guaranteeing unsecured bondholders.

A maximum wage, aiming for a minimum wage not less than a fifth of the maximum wage.

Till that happens, more distributed tax bands (ie 10%/20%/30%/40%/50%/60% on marginal earnings).

(Defo Irish) Take all the various revenue streams concerned with health (private health insurance, doctors' fees, dentists' charges, hospital admission charges, prescription fees, PRSI and other contributions, unemployment insurance etc) and produce a single per-capita figure to provide free basic health care.

No more new roads. Ever.

Segregated cycle lanes and pedestrian lanes, compulsory on all roads, including motoways, which have a maximum speed of 55mph.

All transport investment from now on to be on rail, bus, river and canal.

End CAP subsidies.

Capital + inflation guarantees for pension contributions.

Politicians recallable.

A heavily subsidised insulation scheme.

Four- or three-day weeks becoming the norm.

Some way of making small businesses less daunting to start up and easier to keep going.

A Tobin tax.

I have better things to do, honest.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 13 Apr 2012, 20:29

stevecook172001 wrote:
Who would you rescue?

Simples, tell the person that gave you that long and pointless back story to rescue one while I get the other.

The lesson you just learned is how to reject false limitations imposed by people who think they know the future and to just do the best you can.

Repeat after me, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought......

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 14 Apr 2012, 18:32

None of the "green" solutions (probably including teqs) will work until a way is found of creating economic stability without the economy having to keep growing.

Thus, among other things, a future government should propose changing the way money is issued, to avoid the associated debt. They can then propose shortening the working week, which should hopefully make them popular enough to get elected.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Apr 2012, 20:59

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Repeat after me, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought......

I don't think so, though often the questions are absurd as situations as described will never occur (or, at least, will occur less often than one winning the lottery).

But their value lies in assessing basic eithers/ors, from which one can retreat to test one's everyday values.

Alright, they're a load of bollix.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Apr 2012, 21:00

RenewableCandy wrote:None of the "green" solutions (probably including teqs) will work until a way is found of creating economic stability without the economy having to keep growing.

Thus, among other things, a future government should propose changing the way money is issued, to avoid the associated debt. They can then propose shortening the working week, which should hopefully make them popular enough to get elected.

True.

Also, most governments would probably love to get rid of paper money.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Apr 2012, 21:53

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
Who would you rescue?

Simples, tell the person that gave you that long and pointless back story to rescue one while I get the other.

The lesson you just learned is how to reject false limitations imposed by people who think they know the future and to just do the best you can.

Repeat after me, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought experiments are a waste of time, moral thought......

Nobody has suggested you should not do the best you can. That is an "aunt-sally" argument.

Furthermore, if you really think that all limitations on potential actions are "false", without exception, I suggest you have a little think about that.

Actually, I suggest you have quite a long think.

If, on the other hand, you can conceive of circumstances where such limitation could exist, then all you have just posted is irrelevant rhetoric.

Let me ask you a very simple moral question then, since the more complex ones seem to be causing you some difficulty.

What would you do if you saw someone lying unconscious in the road?

If you can answer that question prior to and independent from the real-world, real-time experience of actually seeing someone unconscious in the road then, guess what, you have just conducted you very first moral thought experiment!

You see, it's not so hard after all, is it......

Or is it, perhaps, that you don't feel comfortable with moral thought experiments where the choice of action isn't nice and simple? well, I've got some bad news for you JSD, sometimes life isn't simple or easy and so neither are the choices it throws up

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 15 Apr 2012, 23:31

RenewableCandy wrote:None of the "green" solutions (probably including teqs) will work until a way is found of creating economic stability without the economy having to keep growing.

Thus, among other things, a future government should propose changing the way money is issued, to avoid the associated debt. They can then propose shortening the working week, which should hopefully make them popular enough to get elected.

How do you get rid of existing debt, though? (Including national debt?) do we just assume we can default or coming hyperinflation will render it meaningless?

I see debt as something which is still an obligation, you can't simply write it off just like that. And I would imagine it is something that would prevent any one country from acting alone. What would happen if a nation suddenly decided to default, even if it wasn't in a situation like Greece or the other PIIGS (hope you don't mind the use of the term, anyone)? how would the international community react?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Apr 2012, 00:23

the_lyniezian wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:None of the "green" solutions (probably including teqs) will work until a way is found of creating economic stability without the economy having to keep growing.

Thus, among other things, a future government should propose changing the way money is issued, to avoid the associated debt. They can then propose shortening the working week, which should hopefully make them popular enough to get elected.
How do you get rid of existing debt, though? (Including national debt?) do we just assume we can default or coming hyperinflation will render it meaningless?

I see debt as something which is still an obligation, you can't simply write it off just like that. And I would imagine it is something that would prevent any one country from acting alone. What would happen if a nation suddenly decided to default, even if it wasn't in a situation like Greece or the other PIIGS (hope you don't mind the use of the term, anyone)? how would the international community react?

It would depend on how big the debt was, what assets they had that could be stripped and who their friends were.

If the debt was large, the assets were potentially large and they had few international friends, they would be invaded. Otherwise they would be simply ignored for a while since it doesn't pay to let others think that they can default as easily.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Apr 2012, 10:55

The_Lyn., it appears that a lot of the debt is simply unpayable, and will eventually get written-off somehow anyway. In that case, perhaps we may as well just be honest about it all and wipe it away.

This will be catastrophic for some (most?) banks, and extremely bad for pension-funds and the like. Which is probably why no-one wants to be honest about it all.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 16 Apr 2012, 11:16

RenewableCandy wrote:The_Lyn., it appears that a lot of the debt is simply unpayable, and will eventually get written-off somehow anyway. In that case, perhaps we may as well just be honest about it all and wipe it away.

This will be catastrophic for some (most?) banks, and extremely bad for pension-funds and the like. Which is probably why no-one wants to be honest about it all.

A quick furtle round t'internet shows credit cards at 15% and up interest, short term loans up to 4000+%, bank loans 6% and up. All this against a 0.5% base rate.

Thus most of the 1 trillion UK personnal debt is loan interest. Looked at like that it's easy. Recalculate the loans to original value plus say 1.0% interest annually and a flat fee on top for administration say £250 maximum. Take off money already repaid and the result could be very small indeed. Government issues bonds and clears it all.

To prevent an immediate reflation of debt introduce old fashioned debt management and cap the maximum interest rate. Most importantly make everybody aware that growth is over and so don't borrow what you can't afford to repay based on NOW.

A generation ago people tended to have one loan to buy their house, often a second to buy a car and that was it. If you couldn't afford a TV you went to Radio Rentals and borrowed one.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Apr 2012, 11:21

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Apr 2012, 11:22

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Apr 2012, 12:10

Not sure what happened there...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Apr 2012, 12:22

I think repeating the +1 could be inflationary.