For an "Investor Society"
February 22, 2008 |
Breakthrough advisory board member Dalton Conley has an incisive op-ed in today's New York Times where he criticizes the $150 billion stimulus package, passed by Congress and signed by Bush, and calls for an "investor society" where every American, especially the poorest Americans, have savings to invest in their future.
Dalton writes:
What if instead of giving rebates we helped create an investor society by seeding universal investment accounts? This would not only pump cash into the economy, through the slightly more indirect route of investment, it would also help us correct some of the near-fatal flaws in our long-term economic landscape.
Dalton notes that increased personal savings is correlated all sorts of positive social outcomes:
Such investment incentives would do more than just help stimulate business growth by providing new capital. They would fundamentally change taxpayers’ lives. Some research suggests that asset-holders behave more responsibly and are more civic-minded than those without wealth. After all, they have a stake in the future of the economy and their community. This is why banks in cities don’t readily offer mortgages for apartments in buildings in which most of the tenants are renters, not owners. My own research suggests that having savings and investment equity is one of the best predictors of whether someone’s children will attend and graduate from college. Investing motivates people of all income levels to defer gratification and become knowledgeable about the economy and society.
The question is, what is needed to achieve this politically? We intend to do some research to explore this question over the next few months.
Comments
If only the "schedules" had a more desirable name...
By Danny on 2009 10 05
I would like to examine why American innovation has so few friends in Congress. I guess the beginning is to look at who the enemies are:
1. Big corporations. They like the status quo, which is predictable and profitable for them, and they don't like new inventions that would make their inventory obsolete and might give competitors an advantage. They don't like clean energy innovations because they might be forced to spend money to install them. They don't like the prospect of new markets that they can't dominate. They contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of their friends in Congress. "What's good for General Motors is good for America" used to be their battlecry, until GM went bankrupt.
2. Academics. Whatever money is available for research somehow winds up going to exotic pure science like string theory, cosmology, particle physics, hot fusion, etc. etc. instead of the grubby applied science and engineering that will be needed for clean energy cheap.
3. Department of Energy. DOE's clean energy research, which is limited to chemical CO2 capture and underground storage (e.g. the FutureGen project), is doomed to failure, like trying to fly by flapping mechanical wings. But that's all DOE is going to look at. Despite a very critical GAO report last year, institutional inertia keeps digging deeper dry holes.
4. Polluters. Despite their green talk, they really want nothing to change.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 10 03
It sounds like something we need right now, jobs and clean energy.
By chris on 2009 10 02
This is a measured response given how CP has slammed BTI this year. Well done.
BTW, Romm's inside-the-beltway perspective is that ACES is all that DC can muster, no ratification of a climate treaty is possible, and, without ACES, the chance of avoiding klimakatastrophe is zero (and only a little better with it). This is not the same as saying ACES is a strong bill, just as good as it gets.
I think you all would find common ground with the following haiku assessment of ACES:
Jacks or Better
ACES
By Greg Robie on 2009 09 29
By Allexx on 2009 09 28
I have been reading Climate Progress for over a year. It's entertaining and topical, but I agree with all your criticisms of Romm. He shuts down debate with anyone who disagrees with him in even the slightest detail.
I have now been moderated to death and then banned twice on his blog. If you read the comments that survive they are now all of the "Joe you're a fantastic guy I want to have your babies keep up the good work" variety.
By Robert on 2009 05 24
Nice tone. I read Romm. He's a smart guy, and I think his heart is in the right place on energy and the environment. But he doesn't seem to be capable of really weighing the facts in an impartial manner. This is easily apparent every time he attacks you guys. I wish Podesta would rein him in a bit and let him know that this whole debate and movement is about more than proving Joe Romm right or wrong. It's about getting the best energy and climate policy we can get, and as soon as possible.
By Jackson on 2009 04 25
I agree. A tough carbon emission price, with cap auction revenues dedicated to real solutions (including a renovated national grid), and no phony offsets, is the only hope of doing anything meaningful in the time (20 years) we have to make a difference on global climate change. It is also the only hope of making clean power attractive enough to stimulate investment in clean tech. I believe that a call to action will get a good response from the American people, provided they can be assured that this is not just another fraud on the part of their government to sneak through a tax to pay for more earmarks and bailouts and wars. Dirty power is cheap in America, and we should get used to paying what the rest of the world pays for clean power. However, the recent Senate vote on consumer indemnity amendments seems to indicate which way the wind is blowing. Consumers want their cheap power to continue, and are not willing to make substantial sacrifices to pay for pollution controls. Politicians therefore be under pressure to promise them that cap revenues will go to offsetting the rate hikes that can be expected when the utilities go to their friendly local PUCs. So what then is the purpose of the cap auction, if the proceeds will get shuffled around and wind up back in the power companies due to compensating rate hikes? Practically none of the proceeds will go to research and development because they are committed to consumer indemnity. And how about the possibility of a bait-and-switch to get more revenue for non-related spending, a repeat of Social Security? What prevents that?
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 04 23
Your blog is very nice & beautiful, So i like it.
Thanks.
By Debt Help on 2009 02 20
I believe that long-term targets are not meaningless, but they are just not as important as immediate action and changes. Long-term planning is the perfect recipe for procrastination. Long-term targets should be seen as goals in a marathon, not a quick sprint in the end to win. Immediate action must be taken now, with goals in the future to reach.
By Aurelia on 2008 07 11