3 Left-Wing Policies Economists Agree on

An article about policies? In this day and age?

I’ve always thought that life was quite an unfair kind of business — one of the ideas from my youth that has managed to stick around. Certain aspects of this unfairness seem woven into the fabric of existence: people are born with debilitating conditions that will affect them for life, while others develop serious illnesses later on — things we don’t have power over, at least not yet.

But there’s other kinds of unfairness that are within our power to address. Some people are born into immense wealth and coast through life, while others are born into poverty and face colossal struggles, even when they work harder or contribute more to society than those born into wealth. In addition, there are significant differences in equality of opportunity among individuals: a child’s chances of success are often determined more by the socio-economic circumstances of their birth than by their talent or effort.

These challenges have, for good reason, long been at the heart of the left’s ethos, rooted in the commitment to enhance society's well-being by fairly rewarding those who contribute through hard work and dedication. However, certain segments of the left seem to have lost sight of these foundational causes.

Are we expanding individual capabilities?

I believe there are still important political battles to be fought on this front to expand equality of opportunity and that a vibrant, coherent left could drive meaningful progress for humanity as a whole.

For these reasons let me tell you about three left-coded policies that economists actually back.

1. The Land Value Tax

Land Value Taxes are taxes imposed on the value of land itself, meaning that regardless of what is built on the land or how it is used, only the land’s inherent value is taxed. Economists get all excited about this tax because, unlike taxes on labor or capital — which can discourage work or investment — taxing land doesn’t reduce the amount of land available or its productive use. It causes minimal economic distortions, which provides orgasmic pleasure to econ nerds.

More relevantly, economists agree (and almost no one disagrees) that this type of tax encourages landowners to develop their land, boosting economic growth in the process.

Land value taxes are considered left-coded because land ownership tends to be concentrated among the wealthy, taxing land value can reduce inequality by redistributing wealth more fairly. Additionally land value often rises thanks to public infrastructure, government services, and community development; by taxing this increased land value, the community recoups some of the benefits it helped create.

2. An Earned Income Tax Credit Expansion

Earned Income Tax Credits are refundable tax breaks meant to support low- to moderate-income workers, especially those with kids. They cut down the amount of taxes you owe and if the credit’s bigger than your tax bill, you get money back. Yes, the state can actually send you a check.

Since the credit increases as you earn more, it encourages people to work. Plus, it’s clearly designed to help those struggling, giving them and their kids a better shot at life.

According to 60.1% of economists, Earned Income Tax Credits should be expanded — and another 30% are on board with some conditions. That’s a pretty big consensus in the econ world.

3. Universal health insurance

Who had seen this one coming? Universal Health Insurance is pretty much what it sounds like: a policy ensuring that everyone in a country gets access to essential healthcare services without needing any private insurance.

Turns out 68.6% of economists think universal coverage would boost economic welfare in the U.S., with another 19.2% agreeing if certain conditions are met. That’s a brutal majority.

How to Push them?

Are these policies popular with the electorate? Honestly, in today’s world, I’m not sure that matters one iota — but I don’t see why they couldn’t be made popular.

Now, let me wade into some shaky territory: it might be that alternative media fuels populism, meaning populism isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. I’m still on the fence, but it’s hard to ignore the possibility that winning political battles might require adopting a more populist style, maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire.

After all, voters don’t seem to punish lying as long as you sell them an exciting worldview. And honestly, these policies practically write themselves into compelling, cerebral collapse type of slogans: “The new world order is hoarding all the houses!” “Let’s crush the evil private insurance companies!” “Billionaires should help with inflation.”

The truth? It doesn’t matter — the slogans just have to get the people going. Everyone knows the rich right is in bed with the private insurance monopolies! I think one could win an election by framing the policies above in just the right populist style.

Should one tap into this mind melting energy, ride the wave to power, and then quietly pass good policies while no one’s paying attention? I don’t know, I hope not.

I hope this isn’t the new norm — the new pragmatic playbook for political success — but I’m scared it just might be.¹

1. I think I should write more about this in the future.