Valid opinions in certain article?

[Maxirad]

Does the author of this article express valid opinions?

 

[weller2]

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody​

He makes sense where he’s talking about a public works program, but he omits that such jobs must be paid LESS than jobs in normal economy because otherwise nobody will want to work a normal job.

2. Social Security for All​

Same problem as above.

3. Take Back The Land​

…through a land tax. Looks good on paper, but is very tricky to get right. Think about a poor person which inherits a house worth $400K. If the estate is taxed at 1% yearly, then this person now has an extra tax burden of $4K per year. So this person now has to sell this house because they cannot afford the tax. But who will buy this house? Well, obviously someone who is richer and thus can afford a tax, which means… a professional landlord. Why? Because a professional landlord, will simply raise the rent to cover the tax, not pay with his own money. So the effect will be to concentrate land ownership even more – which is exactly the opposite of what is intended.

On the other hand, if the person can afford to keep the house, they can rent it out (i.e. become a landlord themselves) or use it to open a business.

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody​

If everything is owned by everybody, this means it is owned by the state and is managed by the state bureaucracy… And we can see how well it worked in the Soviet Union.

5. A Public Bank in Every State​

That one actually makes sense. But there is much simpler solution – separate investment banking and retail banking – i.e. bring back Glass-Steagal act. It was explicitly designed to prevent the kind of disaster which happened in 2008.

 

[Catholic1954]

Sure, they are valid opinions; most socialists share them.

 

[J_Peterson]

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody​

If everything is owned by everybody, this means it is owned by the state and is managed by the state bureaucracy… And we can see how well it worked in the Soviet Union.

Yeah, a quick reading shows that he is really talking about the government owning everything and giving everybody a cut. In other words, an absolutely terrible idea. Even if it works in Alaska, there’s no reason why that would indicate it would work on a larger scale.

Why not shoot for making the means of production being owned on the local/state level. That way you keep private ownership but keep the money in the local economy instead of shipping it all out of state or even worse, outside the country. I’m a simpleton when it comes to economic issues so I’m not even sure how you’d make that happen.