WhyTheHeck

Many commentators have lamented the fact that people did not spend their stimulus checks in 2008, but saved them instead. Obviously, the “stimulus” only works if people spend it. Recent examples of those commentators would be Bruce Bartlett (New York Times 12/24/08), Ed Glaeser (Boston Globe 1/5/09), and Scott Lehigh (Boston Globe 1/9/09). No one has suggested the solution proposed below, which would hugely incentivize spending a tax cut or stimulus check, while at the same time providing a windfall to consumers at no additional cost to the government. So to those commentators and everyone else, we offer the following lesson in the new field of “stimulus economics.”

THE GREEN DIVIDEND:  HOW TO END OUR FOSSIL FUEL ADDICTION WITHOUT PAIN
 
No one talks seriously about reducing our dependence on carbon-based fuels by taxing them, which would be the obvious way to reduce consumption.  The conventional wisdom is that such a tax would be expensive and unpopular, politically dead on arrival. And if the tax [...]

Almost every house sold includes a real estate commission of 5% or more. Eliminate that real estate commission – or vastly reduce it – and the value of every house theoretically rises 5% with no change in price. This would facilitate selling by the owner and/or create more equity in the owner’s house if they don’t sell. While 5% more equity will not solve the housing crisis, it would put a noticeable dent in it…and that 5% might otherwise have been taken out of the government bailout fund. This posting shows how to do exactly that