[cee_el123]

( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book )

( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )

[tomohawk]

Radical solutions elicit radical response, and are rarely warranted.

See for example the French Revolution. Millions of unnecessary deaths due to political repression and wars. And then, 80 years after it all started, finally achieving democracy. All because those in charge at any given moment cared more about their ideas than people.

If you think we can achieve utopia if only everyone signs on to your wonderful idea, it's a sign that you are not only wrong, but should seriously seek counseling.

[shrubble]

1. Rule of law / a set of laws that are enforced equally upon all citizens regardless of wealth or social status.

2. Elimination of usury applied to the money supply of the country in question. That is, issuing money without having a central bank charge interest on the issuance.

I am sure there are more.

[larsiusprime]

Georgist/YIMBYist synthesis with regard to Land Policy + Norwegian natural resource policy (and extending it to all artificial and natural monopolies)

https://www.gameofrent.com

https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-...

https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and...

[colechristensen]

Reduce rent seeking, promote local agriculture university outreach programs, gently trim back on waste, promote competition in stagnated fields.

There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.

[pasquinelli]

a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war.

[ForHackernews]

100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund.

Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

[flenserboy]

The question this brings up is this: instead of making it impossible for families to establish themselves for generations, instead encourage families to think and invest long-term, without having their accumulated experience and wisdom be made meaningless by having their resources stolen from them? Encourage people to have all-around healthy, well-raised children who will (if they so choose) carry on the and develop the family project instead of being, in effect, scattered to the winds. Rather than encouraging people to start public corporations (which are, in our current system, designed to be taken out of the hands of those who build and care for them, then eventually parted out), let's find ways to incentivize families to actually invest in their children and the future, instead of simply in building wealth that will be only temporary while hoping that maybe the kids will do fine. Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes.

[ohCh6zos]

> Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.

Why? It is non-obvious to me that we should have a collective say in why the rich become rich.

[jkmghkjhg]

This wouldn't force the rich to move elsewhere?

[cmsonger]

I could not agree with this more.

It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)