This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste.
Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate.
The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company’s physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns.
The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut.
I think a key benefit is “no taxes”: normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create.
This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable.
but idk, i just thought it up in the bath
The problem with any sort of “what if we just do things a little better?” solution is that even the mildest reform is met with as much fury and violence from the ruling class as full blown revolutionary solutions are. Like straight up “making things better” is a longshot dream to start with so you’re just shooting yourself in the foot if you try to moderate it and preemptively compromise, because the ruling class won’t accept any compromise until their backs are to the wall at which point forfeiting whatever advantages you’ve gained for a few meager concessions is just a recipe for them to turn around and ruthlessly crush you once they’ve reconsolidated their own position.
Also, and I am extremely guilty of doing this in the past myself, trying to just logic out and construct the perfect, ideal system in your head is basically just maladaptive daydreaming. Like it’s good to think about how systems work and to both read about and try to synthesize an understanding of how they can be better, but none of us are liable to be the architects of a new system, because that job is left to the people who’ve managed to win the material power to construct it. Also “read theory” is a meme but it’s also absolutely true, because for every good idea we have or analysis we make there’s a very good chance there are literal volumes written on exactly that subject already - so many very smart and dedicated people have spent countless hours going over and analyzing exactly these sorts of questions in excruciating detail.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a pet theory for a reason, I keep it inside the house, but sometimes I let it look out the window, so people can say “that’s a nice theory”. Maybe someone would sing a song or write a story about it.
It’s a dream, but it’s no more a dream than any other economic theory
