Communism and anarchism are the same thing because they both want to create a classless, stateless society. What you're describing seems to be some sort of social corporatism or technocracy. I support the existence of currency and private property but I believe that ownership of land and capital should be broadly distributed. Here are some interesting ideas you may not have heard of as well as a website with summaries of major economic ideas. You might know about the major theories already but it's convenient to have them in one place and it does a better job than wikipedia.
Hello! A reader named Gabriel linked me over here because I am working on a design for a new system of governance, so your project is related. Here's my ToC if you want to read - https://bestofagreatlot.substack.com/p/table-of-contents
I've read through your 3-part communism series, and I'm not super convinced that it's a viable system design yet, but it's certainly interesting! Here's a concern that I'm not sure if you've thought of. You wrote: "each of these banks are allowed to put some of their deposits towards high-risk, high-reward investments, and the CEOs are properly incentivized in all the ways we discussed back in Part I"
Not all VC firms act the same. Some of them fund hugely risky bets in the hope of achieving many billion dollar outcomes - i.e. building something global - while others of them invest in more mature companies to take it to the next level. There's a niche type called a search fund that invests in companies that have stalled out and they bring in new leadership to take over and make them work better, for example. Some companies succeed because of family financing and grit because they simply can't get VC capital for some reason. In your model, AFAICT, you've set banks up as running VC firms, but I'm having trouble seeing the incentive structure as strong enough to support the wide variety of investment theses and paths that exist in our current society.
Imagine a bank running a VC firm that has an investment thesis. The CEO is currently making enough money that he's giving most of his percent of the profits back to the government, because he's hit the wealth cap. Why bother trying a new type of VC? Why bother taking riskier bets? I imagine you'll say some of the other banks aren't doing as well, and so they will take the risk rather than the bank that's fat, but the banks that aren't doing as well presumably won't have the capital to make enough bets to try a new thesis. And fundamentally the wealth cap acts as a brake on taking risks. I would naively guess that this world has a lot more variability, because growing companies past a certain point just doesn't pay off at all, but as a result, a lot of things are worse
Communism and anarchism are the same thing because they both want to create a classless, stateless society. What you're describing seems to be some sort of social corporatism or technocracy. I support the existence of currency and private property but I believe that ownership of land and capital should be broadly distributed. Here are some interesting ideas you may not have heard of as well as a website with summaries of major economic ideas. You might know about the major theories already but it's convenient to have them in one place and it does a better job than wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_utilization_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
https://thenextsystem.org/
https://m.youtube.com/@ownershipeconomy/videos
https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/#discover
Hello! A reader named Gabriel linked me over here because I am working on a design for a new system of governance, so your project is related. Here's my ToC if you want to read - https://bestofagreatlot.substack.com/p/table-of-contents
I've read through your 3-part communism series, and I'm not super convinced that it's a viable system design yet, but it's certainly interesting! Here's a concern that I'm not sure if you've thought of. You wrote: "each of these banks are allowed to put some of their deposits towards high-risk, high-reward investments, and the CEOs are properly incentivized in all the ways we discussed back in Part I"
Not all VC firms act the same. Some of them fund hugely risky bets in the hope of achieving many billion dollar outcomes - i.e. building something global - while others of them invest in more mature companies to take it to the next level. There's a niche type called a search fund that invests in companies that have stalled out and they bring in new leadership to take over and make them work better, for example. Some companies succeed because of family financing and grit because they simply can't get VC capital for some reason. In your model, AFAICT, you've set banks up as running VC firms, but I'm having trouble seeing the incentive structure as strong enough to support the wide variety of investment theses and paths that exist in our current society.
Imagine a bank running a VC firm that has an investment thesis. The CEO is currently making enough money that he's giving most of his percent of the profits back to the government, because he's hit the wealth cap. Why bother trying a new type of VC? Why bother taking riskier bets? I imagine you'll say some of the other banks aren't doing as well, and so they will take the risk rather than the bank that's fat, but the banks that aren't doing as well presumably won't have the capital to make enough bets to try a new thesis. And fundamentally the wealth cap acts as a brake on taking risks. I would naively guess that this world has a lot more variability, because growing companies past a certain point just doesn't pay off at all, but as a result, a lot of things are worse