I agree with James that the welfare state isn't inherently socialist. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I, a tech bro, can argue for a generous welfare state from a tech bro's perspective.
If you want to maximize innovation, dynamism, and risk-taking in the economy, it would be both good and efficient for the government to absorb a lot of the tail risk. The government can guarantee people some level of basic food, water, shelter, and health care, which would free them up to do what they do best. Sort of like "basic needs as a service."
These services also have to be high enough in quality that depending on them isn't seen as unacceptable. For that reason, it would help if they were universal and broadly used rather than strictly means-tested.
The most radical aspect of Medlock Thought is tax positivity. It sounds like pure lunacy as someone who remembers the '80s and '90s. Even liberals just believed that the IRS was trying to screw you and that government wasted taxpayer dollars.
It's was such a breath of fresh air to hear a rational economic case that it's ok to not feel guilty about having a welfare state.
It's a little scary how much Medlock's views are in sync with my own, based on this interview. Pretty much a carbon copy. The main exception being: I don't use "socialist" as a self-descriptive. To me that implies large-scale state ownership of the means of production, which is something I oppose.
The "higher taxes are good" thing is interesting, but the fastest and most effective way to raise people's real spending power right now is likely with land-use reform and liberalization: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388.
Land-use liberalization is the low-hanging fruit. Get to it, and then discuss the rest of the issues; so much effective value is locked up by land restrictions. And those restrictions affect almost everything else, including Medlock's desire to lower poverty: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Very inspirational on many levels including what you can learn if you learn for the purpose of arguing instead of maintaining ideological good standing with the assumption always in the background that everything you know is wrong.
The “that’s right” sign off was the first and probably last ping of missing Twitter I’ve felt. Great interview. Thanks for reposting
I agree with James that the welfare state isn't inherently socialist. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I, a tech bro, can argue for a generous welfare state from a tech bro's perspective.
If you want to maximize innovation, dynamism, and risk-taking in the economy, it would be both good and efficient for the government to absorb a lot of the tail risk. The government can guarantee people some level of basic food, water, shelter, and health care, which would free them up to do what they do best. Sort of like "basic needs as a service."
These services also have to be high enough in quality that depending on them isn't seen as unacceptable. For that reason, it would help if they were universal and broadly used rather than strictly means-tested.
That's right.
The most radical aspect of Medlock Thought is tax positivity. It sounds like pure lunacy as someone who remembers the '80s and '90s. Even liberals just believed that the IRS was trying to screw you and that government wasted taxpayer dollars.
It's was such a breath of fresh air to hear a rational economic case that it's ok to not feel guilty about having a welfare state.
It's a little scary how much Medlock's views are in sync with my own, based on this interview. Pretty much a carbon copy. The main exception being: I don't use "socialist" as a self-descriptive. To me that implies large-scale state ownership of the means of production, which is something I oppose.
The "higher taxes are good" thing is interesting, but the fastest and most effective way to raise people's real spending power right now is likely with land-use reform and liberalization: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388.
Land-use liberalization is the low-hanging fruit. Get to it, and then discuss the rest of the issues; so much effective value is locked up by land restrictions. And those restrictions affect almost everything else, including Medlock's desire to lower poverty: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Very inspirational on many levels including what you can learn if you learn for the purpose of arguing instead of maintaining ideological good standing with the assumption always in the background that everything you know is wrong.
Still lots of room left for Janet Yellen to put her foot in her mouth and trigger a run on the dollar. 😅