Fried_out_Kombi

Agreed 100%. Upzoning and land value tax would do so much to change the underlying incentive structure. Housing ought to be a consumer good like any other, not a speculative investment or a retirement plan. The fact we became convinced that simply possessing an asset should be our primary means of wealth accumulation is one of our great societal mistakes that we're now paying the price for.

Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

For example, read this study on the policy views of practicing economists: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf

You will find that most economists strongly support things like environmental, food and drug safety, and occupational safety regulations.

Convincing people liberalism is an evil capitalist ploy to deregulate at all costs is a conservative psyop, and judging from comments like the one to which you're responding, it's working.

How do so few people in this comments section see the obvious satire?? It's clearly making fun of both landlords and absurd tipping culture.

Non-paywall link: https://archive.is/psmPE

I'm personally in favor of land value taxes, externality taxes, and natural resource severance taxes.

If they help to get people out of cars (including electric cars), I see them as a win. Orders of magnitude less impactful than cars.

Me, too. I haaaaaate mint toothpaste.

Just discovered coconut ginger toothpaste a little over a year ago. I'm sticking with this toothpaste for life.

I agree that I think worker coops elegantly solve certain problems (notably the principal-agent problem), but they also have certain drawbacks. Notably, they have more difficulty raising funds, they tend to be more risk-averse, they tend to be more growth-averse (people don't like to dilute their own stake within the company with more people, but this means they don't typically scale as easily or quickly to benefit economies of scale), and they tend to pay worse than hierarchical companies (counterintuitive as that may seem at first if the whole goal of market socialism is to have workers get more of their value back).

So is the solution to just throw our hands up and say, "Screw it, nothing we can do but let hierarchical organizations win"? Not quite. We still do see plenty of successful coops, notably in the form of credit unions. We also have unions and syndicalist solutions. We still have minimum wages (which are supported by most economists, as it turns out you can raise minimum wages a certain amount without raising unemployment because there's often a non-zero amount of monopsony power in the labor market).

Further, I do think a Georgist system would empower labor much more than now. Without a housing crisis (thanks to LVT and YIMBYism), with a citizen's dividend, with quality public education (education has positive externalities and thus deserves a Pigouvian subsidy), with more jobs (thanks to more economic growth and less rent-seeking), and with public works projects (essentially Pigouvian subsidies for things like environmental cleanup), I think labor would have much more bargaining power with employers.

For instance, the professional class right now gets good pay and generally good quality of life , despite rarely having unions or worker coops, precisely because they have high negotiating power with prospective employers.

My inclination is to strive for a more Georgist system, encourage unions, use minimum wages and government spending technocratically, and then see if more is yet needed.

But society already values flexibility as well. As a basic example, I was hired in my current job in large part because I have a relatively broad range of skills within my field, rather than being hyper-specialized in one particular thing. Sure, in an abstract world where replacing employees is frictionless and firms are all megacorps with tens of thousands of employees (or more), tremendous specialization would probably be more commonplace. But in our real world, companies value flexible employees who can respond to changing projects, requirements, conditions, etc., because just firing and hiring a new specialist costs times and money, and many companies (startups especially) can't afford having thousands of specialists in every niche they touch upon.

Further, even specialists have to communicate and collaborate with other specialists, and they need to be able to understand each other well enough to do so. If you wanted to build robotics to pick tomatoes automatically, for instance, it would be ridiculous to hire one tomato farmer and one roboticist who know nothing about each other's respective specializations. If neither has any flexibility or breadth of knowledge, it will be very difficult for them to communicate and collaborate to get the project working.

People live in an artificial binary where they believe communism and capitalism are the only two economic systems in the entire world.

I'll be bold and say it outright: communism is a fundamentally broken idea and sucks balls, and so is capitalism, but both in similar-yet-different ways.

Communism is faulty economics and fails to differentiate between man-made capital and god-given land and natural resources, grouping both as "the means of production". The problem with this is land and capital have very different properties. Where land (and natural resources) cannot be created and are zero-sum, capital must be created and is not zero-sum. Communism blatantly ignores this and has a zero-sum view on capital, meaning it suggests policies that fail to effectively produce new capital, and thus fail to effectively produce new wealth and prosperity. Further, when the state takes monopolistic control over land and capital (in addition to its existing monopoly on violence), it concentrates far too much power, which is why communist countries keep on becoming brutal dictatorships.

Capitalism, on the other hand, also fails to differentiate between land and capital, but in a different way. Instead of socializing both, it privatizes both, allowing massive rent-seeking and exploitation as a result of monopolization of land and natural resources. It also often willfully ignores that negative externalities and other market failures actually make society, on the net, poorer and less prosperous. Further, this concentration of wealth into the rent-seeking, monopolist class grants them more political power to make it even easier to rent-seek, further concentrating their own power and wealth.

What I want instead is a Georgist system that correctly identifies this distinction between land and capital, and then uses economically proven policies that respect the inherent differences between land and capital.

This video describes well the difference between land value and property taxes: Why America's Biggest Cities Are Littered With Vacant Lots.

Also, from the wiki page:

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Some economists favor LVT, arguing they do not cause economic inefficiency, and help reduce economic inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]

In short, LVT taxes just the land value, where property taxes tax the total property value, including both land and improvement value. The idea of why LVT is better is because it makes it less profitable to simply hoard valuable urban land and resell later when it has appreciated. Instead, it heavily incentivizes people to develop new housing or businesses on valuable urban land, which helps combat the housing crisis.

It's also progressive, hard to evade (you can't hide land), economically efficient, incentivizes good things (development), and disincentivizes bad things (land hoarding and speculation). Even a milquetoast LVT has been shown to make housing more affordable.

YIMBY:

The YIMBY movement (short for "yes in my back yard") is a pro-Infrastructure development movement mostly focusing on public housing policy, real estate development, public transportation, and pedestrian safety in transportation planning, in contrast and in opposition to the NIMBY ("not in my back yard") movement that generally opposes most forms of urban development in order to maintain the status quo.[1][2][3] The YIMBY position supports increasing the supply of housing within cities where housing costs have escalated to unaffordable levels.[4] They have also supported infrastructure development project like improving housing development[5] (especially for affordable housing[6] or trailer parks[7]), high-speed rail lines,[8][3]homeless shelters,[9] day cares,[10] schools, universities and colleges,[11][12] bike lanes, and transportation planning that promotes pedestrian safety infrastructure.[2]

YIMBYs often seek rezoning that would allow denser housing to be produced or the repurposing of obsolete buildings, such as shopping malls, into housing.[13][14][15] Some YIMBYs have also supported public-interest projects like clean energy or alternative transport.[16][17][18][19]

The YIMBY movement has supporters across the political spectrum, including left-leaning adherents who believe housing production is a social justice issue, free-market libertarian proponents who think the supply of housing should not be regulated by the government, and environmentalists who believe land use reform will slow down exurban development into natural areas.[20] YIMBYs argue cities can be made increasingly affordable and accessible by building more infill housing,[21][22][23]: 1  and that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by denser cities.[24]

Land value tax:

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Some economists favor LVT, arguing they do not cause economic inefficiency, and help reduce economic inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6] Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax because it does not hurt economic activity, and encourages development without subsidies.

LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]