There’s a lot to be said here, because as far as I know this is a novel gradualist approach to post capitalism. You’re right that with current power disparity, and economic capture of political discourse, it’s difficult to wager that both a representative and their party will stake their political life on an idea that runs contrary to their backers’ base interests.[0]
However, if the greater idea were to gain traction, I (as someone who would not “benefit” from PMI currently) imagine that even the people who stand to lose the most could be convinced that equality creates a world they’d prefer to live in. If they aren’t lockean, this could be as simple as, income inequality jeopardizes your empire. If they are, you really just tell them a story of people dancing in the street, new ways of being, and the glory and wonder of everyone reaching their full potential.
In realpolitik, it’s a very simple equation. Everyone below the mean would vote for it, already a simple majority. Then add everyone earning more than their fair share, voting out of guilt, and you have as many votes as you need. It’s only a matter of education to generate the political will to enact something like this.
Now, to actually enact the system, you would need some controls to prevent capital flight, because one way the whole thing falters, even if you build the coalition, is if former shareholders and “slumlords” extract “their” investment in the economy and ship it elsewhere, to a locale without PMI.
At some point you have to trust people, and say that yes, some people will extract their value and take it elsewhere, but the gains of a social economy for human wellbeing and resilience in the face of technological changes and post-scarcity far outweigh the loss from fleeing capitalists.
Edit: Thinking more about this, I’m not sure it matters, anyone can take their currency elsewhere, it just changes the baseline of average PMI, and they opt out. As long as they make no moves to ship production elsewhere, like actual physical extraction of machinery and other goods, the monetary flight doesn’t matter. Only capitalists care what the number is.
If it’s a real concern, like every capitalist invested in the US economy packs up their factories and servers and ships them to Ghana, let’s just stop them? If it’s to the point where we’re all going to vote for this, there’s enough political will to stop a mass export of the means of production. Let them sell their assets back to us, and take their funny money elsewhere! But what the peaceful transition with SEC buyouts is supposed to look like, even for people who want to leave, is everyone with a formerly outsized portion of property to whatever extent, gets excess income and contribution points as consequence of that excess income, and maybe they rehabilitate into free humans.
[0] This is spurious, as every extra dollar adds less life satisfaction, but is what the justification/rhetoric would be
There’s a lot to be said here, because as far as I know this is a novel gradualist approach to post capitalism. You’re right that with current power disparity, and economic capture of political discourse, it’s difficult to wager that both a representative and their party will stake their political life on an idea that runs contrary to their backers’ base interests.[0]
However, if the greater idea were to gain traction, I (as someone who would not “benefit” from PMI currently) imagine that even the people who stand to lose the most could be convinced that equality creates a world they’d prefer to live in. If they aren’t lockean, this could be as simple as, income inequality jeopardizes your empire. If they are, you really just tell them a story of people dancing in the street, new ways of being, and the glory and wonder of everyone reaching their full potential.
In realpolitik, it’s a very simple equation. Everyone below the mean would vote for it, already a simple majority. Then add everyone earning more than their fair share, voting out of guilt, and you have as many votes as you need. It’s only a matter of education to generate the political will to enact something like this.
Now, to actually enact the system, you would need some controls to prevent capital flight, because one way the whole thing falters, even if you build the coalition, is if former shareholders and “slumlords” extract “their” investment in the economy and ship it elsewhere, to a locale without PMI.
At some point you have to trust people, and say that yes, some people will extract their value and take it elsewhere, but the gains of a social economy for human wellbeing and resilience in the face of technological changes and post-scarcity far outweigh the loss from fleeing capitalists.
Edit: Thinking more about this, I’m not sure it matters, anyone can take their currency elsewhere, it just changes the baseline of average PMI, and they opt out. As long as they make no moves to ship production elsewhere, like actual physical extraction of machinery and other goods, the monetary flight doesn’t matter. Only capitalists care what the number is.
If it’s a real concern, like every capitalist invested in the US economy packs up their factories and servers and ships them to Ghana, let’s just stop them? If it’s to the point where we’re all going to vote for this, there’s enough political will to stop a mass export of the means of production. Let them sell their assets back to us, and take their funny money elsewhere! But what the peaceful transition with SEC buyouts is supposed to look like, even for people who want to leave, is everyone with a formerly outsized portion of property to whatever extent, gets excess income and contribution points as consequence of that excess income, and maybe they rehabilitate into free humans.
[0] This is spurious, as every extra dollar adds less life satisfaction, but is what the justification/rhetoric would be