To quote: Finally, as taxes and fees are introduced in the local economy, the community can start to issue a Universal Basic Income in its own currency, without causing inflation.
Various taxes can be organically introduced, including sales taxes, land taxes 1, and pigovian taxes 3 on things like pollution, fossil fuels, meat or cigarettes. By redistributing taxed money equally to everyone, this can align public incentives with taxing these negative externalities, and avoid them falling disproportionately on the working class, as happened with the yellow vest protests in France.
As demand for the local currency (and thus local real estate and services) grows, so does the town’s ability to tax various transactions. The town’s citizens could be given the ability to democratically vote on the level of taxes, and thus the level of UBI, they want to receive.
Thus the town can have both sound money and true democratic control of its fiscal and monetary policies, all the while becoming more self-sufficient and stronger. Any town will be able to introduce a local UBI to end food insecurity, improve health outcomes, reduce dependence on means-tested welfare programs, and so on.
PS: Why all the downvotes? Why always silent with no reason?
They are classical liberal, which is impossible to place in the current US Left-Right spectrum because politics have become even dumber than previously thought possible
Based on this comment tree, I'm tempted to believe neither of them mean anything. Or at least very few people are aware of whatever real definition they have. But many people have opinions about it.
> Or at least very few people are aware of whatever real definition they have
I mean, like many things, the meaning of 'liberal' has shifted over the last few centuries, and always differed somewhat between regions anyway. Words in English mean what people use them to mean.
Not really. Ever seen a "liberal" liberate or a "conservative" conserve?
The term got its current usage when FDR came in because at that time it was a matter of "burn it all down" (real socialism) vs "fix the private property system around the margins".
Fair enough from a pedantic point of view, but I was using the term in this sense, as it is the most recognizable modern term to describe serious economic positions of this kind:
Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free markets, reduced government intervention, and individual liberty. It's often associated with policies like deregulation, privatization, and free trade. Proponents believe these measures foster economic growth, efficiency, and individual prosperity. However, critics argue that neoliberal policies can lead to increased inequality, social instability, and exploitation
And my point was here they were applauding policies involving clear government intervention.
The government has a clear role for internalizing externalities, which makes markets more efficient. Or, in this case, using price signals to allocate scarce resources when it was just a free-for-all before.
Congestion pricing seems like a pretty liberal policy to me. Using supply and demand to set a price.
Sure, you could crank the Friedman dial to 11 by say, privatizing the roads and letting the operators set the price based on competition.
But the policy is liberal at its core. A “lefty, collectively enforced” policy would be something like a quota or permit system.
A key difference being that anyone who wants to drive on the road can do so as long as they pay. It isn’t “everyone with odd license plate numbers can drive today, evens can drive tomorrow” but rather “you can drive today if it’s worth $9 to you”.
I think you and the parent comment are confusing the term "liberal". He refers to "liberal" in the classical sense: free markets, limited government, rule of law, etc. You mean "liberal" in the North American sense: lefty, social justice, etc.
Additionally all those emergency vehicles are going to have an easier time shuttling patients to hospitals and firefighters to fires. The whole spectrum benefits from that, not just the rich.
Charging for an scarce resource instead of letting the tragedy of the commons play out does sound like something obvious to come out of a neoliberal economist yes.
The Economist has long been pretty outspoken over their preference for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade (see any article they write about carbon emissions).
Just like the ACA/Obamacare was very similar to a proposal that came out of the Heritage Foundation, but was universally hated by the people on that side.
While I support congestion pricing, I will say that The Economist is most notable these days a negative oracle: whatever it predicts, the opposite will happen.
Yet they stay true to economics principles even when they are more lefty and collectively enforced :)
Now imagine what else Pigovian Taxes can do to help solve collective action problems, if we had a UBI and local city currencies: https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...
To quote: Finally, as taxes and fees are introduced in the local economy, the community can start to issue a Universal Basic Income in its own currency, without causing inflation.
Various taxes can be organically introduced, including sales taxes, land taxes 1, and pigovian taxes 3 on things like pollution, fossil fuels, meat or cigarettes. By redistributing taxed money equally to everyone, this can align public incentives with taxing these negative externalities, and avoid them falling disproportionately on the working class, as happened with the yellow vest protests in France.
As demand for the local currency (and thus local real estate and services) grows, so does the town’s ability to tax various transactions. The town’s citizens could be given the ability to democratically vote on the level of taxes, and thus the level of UBI, they want to receive.
Thus the town can have both sound money and true democratic control of its fiscal and monetary policies, all the while becoming more self-sufficient and stronger. Any town will be able to introduce a local UBI to end food insecurity, improve health outcomes, reduce dependence on means-tested welfare programs, and so on.
PS: Why all the downvotes? Why always silent with no reason?