I disagree there are some points in the article that are new. Such as the limit being based on a percentage of the tenants earnings rather than a flat rate, which tends to be unfair to either one party, it is either too high for the tenant or too low for the landlord. By making rent a percentage rate of earnings it makes it stay in line with living standards and the economy as a whole. In terms of my work in general not being new or original my work on pension saving and using it as a way of controlling inflation was. This is the area where I led a lot of new economic thinking and also put in massive reforms in the UK Pension Tax Manual, previously the Registered Pension Scheme Manual. Not only are the techniques I used original but I am the person who puts them forward to the government. They are then often, but not always, used and subsequently implemented as policy and have led to a greater ability to cut the deficit and control consumption levels. You have to understand there is the idea itself and the implementation of the policy. The concept of altering who pays a certain level of tax or who receives more of the workers income the landlord or the tenant, to alter consumption based on propensities to consume, yes this has been around for a while. But the method of interacting with it and the wider macroeconomic consequences seem to have been neglected. By making it a percentage of pay it means it falls within earning rates and improves the living standard. Another example would be using interest rates to control inflation. If interest rates rise it could lead to many businesses failing and homeowners defaulting. Using another mechanism to control consumption could cut inflation without those consequences. The suggestion of the rent control mechanism might be a appropriate. Although at the moment it could go against the tenant as the rate would rise to lower consumption. However using pension saving, an increase in it, to reduce consumption would work. More saving means less consumption, so a mechanism to encourage pension saving would reduce inflation without the consequences of an interest rate rise on businesses and homeowners a like. The wider picture has to be looked at when using these tools. New tools can avoid these issues. If there is anyone else who has scoured the pension tax regime to devise a new way of controlling consumption/saving in an effort to control inflation then please tell me who they are. As far as I am aware I started it, it was called the CPR.
The Earned Income Credit is an example of the wider consequences of the implementation of economic policy. In the UK we have working tax credits, which appear to be similar. Yes consumption will rise, but it could have a knock on affect on working hours or output, so the outcomes could be counterproductive. Then there is the cost to the government, who subsidise it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons national debt is so high. My methods would not cost the government or tax payer anything. They would simply make, in the case of the rent control, the tenant or the landlord marginally wealthier or poorer depending on whether they were trying to increase or decrease consumption levels. The pension saving mechanism is also not going to cost the government anything, apart from the possible rise in tax relief (this can be avoided), but can control saving rates. When using these mechanisms you have to look at all of the consequences of the policy and the tools used to implement them. Both alterations to taxation and alterations to interest rates have racked up tremendous national and private debt in the aim of hitting consumption and inflation targets. To be honest considering what has been happening it seems to me that if there is no other way of controlling it then you are stuck with crippling debt. I can only see an end to record national and private debt when taxation and interest rates are not used to control consumption and inflation targets. This is why I have done so much research in this area and I think, although you might not acknowledge it, so much success in introducing pension reform and also welfare, tax credit and benefit reform. I have been doing this in the UK since 2006 with many triumphs.
Read some Thomas Sowell on the secondary effects of those Interventionist policies and you will see how truly detremental they are. If a government asks you to tell them what they can do to stimulate the economy you tell them NOTHING! or tell them to drop the Interventionist policies they currently have on...
What if the new policies help to benefit the economy. Using pension saving to reduce inflation will increase long term saving. Reducing taxation for low income earners will help to alleviate poverty. I think the problem is the methods used have negative impacts on the economy, perhaps on purpose to meet hidden political agendas. Either way with what people are on the hook to lose at the moment the government has had little choice but to look for alternative economic tools, if for no other reason but to maintain the value of the currency. I would like to point out that these methods have been used effectively in the UK, in pension reform.
It's rinse and repeat.. intervene in the market cause problems then intervene again to alleviate those problems .. ever causing more problems to cause a call for more intervention... All on the basis that inflation is good because we need to support the bad behavior of our debt creating Government... Have you ever read any Von Mises? Or Carl Menger, or Hayek.....
Pushing money around is one. But there are many others like membership of the EU, Nationalism, trying to turn the economy into a communist state, trying to free the market up etc. They all seem to clash and macroeconomics seems to be ignored. I would like to think that the victory in terms of macroeconomics comes in the new ideas and methods that come about with dealing with these problems. I have been massively innovative in the last decade to get around these issues.
Most people think inflation is bad because it takes away currency value and stock wealth of the country. Also it can impact the accuracy of economic forecasting. Most governments try to control it one way or another. I just think the methodology of it is not great. In terms of taxation and inflation they push investment away and damage the investment currency mechanism. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot....m-uk-and.html?q=investment+currency+mechanism In terms of economic forecasting it will diminish the ability to value portfolios if inflation is not controlled. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot....freidmans-greatest-contribution.html?q=milton
Inflation is a type is redistribution... The first receivers of the new money benefit at the expense of the last receivers. IE banks, Government contractors, at the expense of fixed income retirees, wage earners, or anyone else in the middle lower class. Asset holding classes are able to survive as a result of owning real property which is a hedge against inflation... It's a basic tax on saving and it subsizes the debters as they pay back debt with dollars in the future which are cheaper... It inherently builds leveage into the system... It is a type of StAtism in which the Government steals your value by diluting the population ....it really is villainous. We have seen here in the US the outright bail out of companies with tax/inflate at the expense of the purchasing power of the masses.. it's outright fraud to subsidize poor business practices with other people's money. Murray Rothbard went into detail how bad this is for economy in the long run. But As one jerk off economist said. In the long run we are all dead.
"most people think". Most people don't read economics and just spout off whatever CNN or Fox is slanging