Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[rotting bones]

Yeah, there's the whole 'Randian hero/Bruce Wayne trope.i generally don't believe star CEOs are misunderstood Nietzschean types.

In fact a lot of capitalism, and IMO the most important part of it occurs at a small scale, and is practiced by people who'd be very surprised to hear themselves called capitalism: think of small store owners, restaurants, freelancers, etc.

Many business classes are known to train themselves through predatory games.

I wouldn't describe it as "Randian" though. They think of themselves as warriors, but apolitical ones in the style of Sun Tzu; though IME, military academicians actually prefer Clausewitz.

(Irrelevant tangent: IIRC Sun Tzu became popular after Mao defeated the Western-backed regime in China and Westerners gained respect for something the Chinese did for the first time in modern history, but Mao's approach actually derived from Clausewitz. This was natural, given the Communist movement's roots in the German intellectual tradition.)

[rotting bones]

I'm not sure I consider such small-scale things "Capitalism", as small shops (or establishments where a craftsman does a thing) predate Capitalism.

I don't either.

[rotting bones]

If people always vote against taxes, why do taxes keep going up?

And yet, despite all that, people don't vote Libertarian all that much!

I don't know if any answer I can give right now will do justice to the complexity of this question.

The basic answer is that what the people really want is not government so much as a perpetual motion machine. They expect the government to give them all the food, all the shelter, all the medicine, and instead of charging them, throw some pocket money into the bargain. What they are opposed to, everywhere and always, is economic austerity, and raising taxes is a form of economic austerity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

Capitalists are no exception to this rule. They only oppose government intervention when it threatens profitability. When government intervention benefits business, they are all in favor of it.

My solution is: Let the people oppose austerity. Instead of asking, "Lower taxes?", ask "More food (or whatever your economy is hurting for right now)?" They will say yes to both questions; simultaneously, if that's how you ask them.

Economically, taxes serve many purposes, but I will only try to explain the most ideologically pertinent reason for me as to why there should be taxes.

There is a structural flaw in capitalist production: Only capitalists who make a profit survive. Making a profit means giving away a smaller share of the total social capital than you earn. But you must do this by selling your products. To buy your products, others must use significant fractions of the total social capital to make it worth your while. In the long term, you and your fellow capitalists are actively preventing others from owning the fractions they need to buy your products by doing nothing more nefarious than maintaining the profitability of your business.

From a bird's eye view, capitalism is always heading towards bigger and bigger crises. After each crisis is weathered, faith in capitalism surges until it runs into another crisis years down the line. There is a way to forestall these crises: Break into new markets and optimize/exploit them to increase profitability. (These new markets may be locations where free trade with the global market was restricted but have now been opened up, markets that are created by technological innovation, etc.) Ideally, the increased profitability might allow you to slow the rise of taxes while optimizability remains unexploited. In practice, businesses will probably swallow the extra profit because no politician will volunteer to stop them.

If society is to survive under capitalism, then the balance must be reset. Think of it like this: You can only exploit someone who controls something you want. You can only eat an animal with flesh on its bones. If the non-capitalists are relatively destitute, then how will they buy what the capitalists are offering for sale? If inequality becomes too great, you have to make the dogs hungry again by enriching the non-capitalists and/or impoverishing the capitalists. Failing to do this will make business unprofitable, causing a depression. Ergo taxes.

Besides, in terms of power relations, no one can tax you if you are actually someone important. Move your offices to Ireland for a start.

[zompist]

From a bird's eye view, capitalism is always heading towards bigger and bigger crises. After each crisis is weathered, faith in capitalism surges until it runs into another crisis years down the line.

This is standard Marxism, but it's an expression of religious hope rather than an actual observation.

Yes, capitalism lurches between crises (and often causes them). So does every other human institution ever.

The crises get bigger numerically, because the population and total weatlh are bigger. Are they getting worse in a Marxist way?

The gold standard for US depressions is the Great Depression, where output declined 27%. Have the crises been getting worse? No, none of the ones since have been that bad. The 2007 recession, the one that made Gen X into socialists, had an output decline of 5% and an unemployment rate half that of the Great Depression. Final numbers are not in, but the Covid recession looks to be smaller yet.

But perhaps the Great Depression was the culminating event in a worsening series of crises? No, depressions before it were worse. The 1873 depression was both longer and more severe (34% output decline). And that was before the social safety net was created.

I understand, believe me, the idea that capitalism today is particularly awful. We're back to plutocracy But plutocracy isn't something new, and it was arguably far worse in the 1800s.

I'm focusing on the US, but I think it would be pretty difficult to claim that capitalism is treating India worse today than in, say, 1857. Being a British industrial worker sucked, but being a British colonial subject sucked even more.

Think of it like this: You can only exploit someone who controls something you want. You can only eat an animal with flesh on its bones. If the non-capitalists are relatively destitute, then how will they buy what the capitalists are offering for sale? If inequality becomes too great, you have to make the dogs hungry again by enriching the non-capitalists and/or impoverishing the capitalists. Failing to do this will make business unprofitable, causing a depression. Ergo taxes.

This is basically the argument for US liberalism (as opposed to plutocracy). And it's correct! Only being correct does not mean that a theory will predominate.

The actual capitalists-- the 1%-- are pragmatic, and to some extend bend with the political winds. When Biden won, you can bet that a lot of contributions shifted from the R to the D column. The really rich don't care about the culture war, and they're not really in favor of climate change. (The megacorporations are preparing for it, not denying it.) They don't personally want people to starve. But they don't want them to do too well either; they call that 'inflation' and write blistering op-eds about it.

Anyway, my point is: those dudes don't feel remotely threatened right now. Everyone else might be feeling very precarious, but they're not. And capitalists running an unequal economy can persist for centuries-- cf. the 1900s. Maybe even more assuredly today, when that safety net exists.

(Not that they're actually going to last for centuries. Climate change is going to fuck everything up. But under present laws, all they have to worry about is the next quarter.)

[rotting bones]

Are they getting worse in a Marxist way?

I already said that capitalism is better now because capitalists can bail themselves out.

Anyway, my point is: those dudes don't feel remotely threatened right now. Everyone else might be feeling very precarious, but they're not. And capitalists running an unequal economy can persist for centuries-- cf. the 1900s. Maybe even more assuredly today, when that safety net exists.

If something I said implies that capitalism will collapse by itself, then I made a mistake. On the contrary, I have my own reasons to think exploitation will continue indefinitely. Other than the technical solution I mentioned above, there are several rhetorical tools. From where I'm standing, the strongest looks like Hinduism without the name. Caste identities are stronger than they have ever been, whether racial, national or cultural. Instead of seeking justice, these serve to consolidate organic totalities in the manner of fascist regimes. If blacks resent being exploited by whites, have blacks exploit them. There is no difficulty as long as exploitation continues. If I feel alienated, I'm told to be more myself and explore the roots of my tradition on the left, and on the right, move to a Muslim country where I will be rejected as an apostate, a foreigner, etc. If I reject the path that works for most people, there is meditation, yoga and "spirituality" AKA doublethink.

Feel free to explain why taxation is necessary yourself.

[rotting bones]

Maybe I should have just said, "Taxes rise because maintaining more costly infrastructure is usually more expensive." I don't know, that's also a good answer. A comprehensive answer to a question like that which addresses how each theory fits into the bigger picture would fill an encyclopedia.

[Ares Land]

My solution is: Let the people oppose austerity. Instead of asking, "Lower taxes?", ask "More food (or whatever your economy is hurting for right now)?" They will say yes to both questions; simultaneously, if that's how you ask them.

That could be a good idea, but the problem is people right now aren't even worrying about taxes. If we could get the average Western voter to stop worrying about brown people and worry about taxes instead, believe, we'd have taken a huge step forward.

There is a structural flaw in capitalist production: Only capitalists who make a profit survive. Making a profit means giving away a smaller share of the total social capital than you earn. But you must do this by selling your products. To buy your products, others must use significant fractions of the total social capital to make it worth your while. In the long term, you and your fellow capitalists are actively preventing others from owning the fractions they need to buy your products by doing nothing more nefarious(...)

There are several fallacies here. I think you're mixing up capital and income, but let's leave that to rest. More importantly, you're implying that the economy is a zero-sum game. It's not. The economy is actually growing (at a tiny rate these days, but the numbers do add up). Second, everyone has to make a profit: if you work, you have to get more out of your job in wages than you put it in in expenses and effort. That is true no matter what economic system you choose. Even a socialist business has to rake in more than it puts out in effort to survive (or else it's being propped up by other means). TANSTAAFL, no magic money tree, and all that. Third, while everyone is using currency as a common unit of measure for convenience, people are actually exchanging different things.

(Can capitalist shoot themselves in the foot by essentially preventing people from buying anything? Yes, they can. We call that 'the Great Depression' and you'll note that it has not reoccured precisely because, as I said, such thing can and have been regulated and controlled.)

On the contrary, I have my own reasons to think exploitation will continue indefinitely.

The situation has improved before, and by orders of magnitude. We got paid vacation, health insurance, cheaper education, pensions.
I don't believe our present stage where we're stuck with plutocracy are an unavoidable consequence of the system that was miraculously divined by Marx and Lenin. For that matter, it's not even equally awful everywhere (the US is doing better than India, France is doing better than the US, Germany is doing even better, Finland and Sweden even better, though no country has a perfect system just yet.)

I'm afraid that the problem is, at least in democracies, that you can't lead a horse to water. As long as people vote for conservatives (and it looks like they'll keep doing so), we are, I'm afraid, in this by the People's will.

[rotting bones]

That could be a good idea, but the problem is people right now aren't even worrying about taxes. If we could get the average Western voter to stop worrying about brown people and worry about taxes instead, believe, we'd have taken a huge step forward.

It's not just the West, or even especially the West. Matters are worse in the Third World. This is exploited by both global capitalists and their enemies. Earth in the 21st century is a Hindu Rashtra.

More importantly, you're implying that the economy is a zero-sum game. It's not. The economy is actually growing (at a tiny rate these days, but the numbers do add up).

This is a misunderstanding. The real economy is not a zero sum game, but the capitalist economy is in a certain sense. The capitalist economy has no organic relation to the natural world. It's a body of laws that humans came up with.

Say you have 10 beans. You plant them and get 100 beans. Your neighbor Bob plants 10 beans and gets 1000 every time. Now let's say I have a bean. Both you and Bob want me to invest it in your respective gardens. Who do I give it to? If I eat my bean, that's a loss. If I give it to you in exchange for proportionate returns, that also counts as a loss as a long term investment because everyone with a functioning neuron will give their beans to Bob. Soon, Bob will be so much richer than you, he will be able to buy you several times over. If I give my bean to you, and you sell your garden to Bob for a million beans*, then I could be left beanless in the street. This, despite that fact that your establishment was turning a natural profit. (BTW this is why I don't consider small producers to be capitalists.)

I know I'm slipping into absurd metaphors, but I already explained all these concepts using old fashioned words.

*Edit: TBH buying before a merger is just about the least dangerous market force I can think of in this context.

[Ares Land]

I don't get your point. I do get your bean story and something like this occurs very regularly,, but how is it a fundamental fault in capitalism or a proof that capitalist economy is zero sum?

(Besides, all other things being equal, if I'm that bad at growing beans, everyone benefits from me going out of business and doing something else!)

[rotting bones]

I don't get your point. I do get your bean story and something like this occurs very regularly,, but how is it a fundamental fault in capitalism or a proof that capitalist economy is zero sum?

I'm trying to say that among publicly traded companies, only the most profitable survive. You can't say, "I'm adding value, so I'm one member of a diverse ecosystem." Once the less profitable companies are edged out of the market (after being controlled for demand, capacities, etc), any capital entering the market gets rapidly divided among the most profitable companies. Any subsequent trading approximates zero sum, though not perfectly. Does that make sense?

Again, this is not exactly correct; just a first approximation. The real model in contemporary socialist economics uses annoying gas laws: https://www.pdfdrive.com/classical-econ ... 18166.html I tried to explain what those say, but gave up halfway through. Relevant background material is presented from Chapter 7 in (the pdf's, not the book's) page 140. The theory itself is elaborated from Chapter 10 in page 185. It's not really reasonable to ask anyone to read this.

Edit: On second thought, even the first paragraph here is not the full story I'm going for. You have to use your imagination a bit. Let me know if I messed up in explaining any of this.

[Ares Land]

Ah, yes. Though there are other ways to get financing than the stock market, new companies do enter regularly, and new companies do get financing.

Looking at, I don't know, mobile phone companies, the list of major ones isn't the same as 20 years ago. (Huawei didn't exist, neither did Xiaomi, Apple wasn't in that market, Ericsson and Nokia dropped from the list...) And besides the major ones, there are many other manufacturers -- many catering to slightly different needs.

[Nortaneous]

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule?

If people always vote against taxes, why do taxes keep going up?

You mean, the way the top tax rate went up from 92% in the early 1950s to the dizzying heights of 37% today? Down really is up in conservativeland.

History didn't begin in 1950. Or do you mean to say that the Sixteenth Amendment lowered taxes? And how do state sales tax rates in 2021 compare to those in 1821? (Trick question - state sales taxes generally didn't exist until the 1920s.)

[KathTheDragon]

If people always vote against taxes, why do taxes keep going up?

You mean, the way the top tax rate went up from 92% in the early 1950s to the dizzying heights of 37% today? Down really is up in conservativeland.

History didn't begin in 1950. Or do you mean to say that the Sixteenth Amendment lowered taxes? And how do state sales tax rates in 2021 compare to those in 1821? (Trick question - state sales taxes generally didn't exist until the 1920s.)

Zompist was questioning the assertion that taxes "keep going up" by pointing out that taxes have dropped substantially since the 50s.

[Nortaneous]

Zompist was questioning the assertion that taxes "keep going up" by pointing out that taxes have dropped substantially since the 50s.

The top marginal income tax rate is not "taxes" - especially for our purposes here, since hardly anyone was in that tax bracket, and the few who were could surely have afforded high-octane accountants to evade it.

But it looks like I was still technically wrong - according to Piketty, Saez & Zucman 2017, the average tax burden peaked in the late '90s. (Fig. IX, p. 50)

[MacAnDàil]

Those high-octane accountants seem to have arisen along with the lower top marginal income tax rate. That may just be my impression without searching much, but I don't think I've heard of that form of tax evasion in the 1950s.

[rotting bones]

Ah, yes. Though there are other ways to get financing than the stock market, new companies do enter regularly, and new companies do get financing.

Looking at, I don't know, mobile phone companies, the list of major ones isn't the same as 20 years ago. (Huawei didn't exist, neither did Xiaomi, Apple wasn't in that market, Ericsson and Nokia dropped from the list...) And besides the major ones, there are many other manufacturers -- many catering to slightly different needs.

Oh, were you saying that the economy is not zero sum in the sense that money can be created, loans can be granted, etc.? If so, I don't understand why it makes sense to say that in the context of taxation. My argument is that the newly minted money will also be sucked into the profitability vortex with high probability since the stock market is the primary mechanism by which capitalism operates. None of this precludes new companies from becoming more profitable than older ones, whether by providing better service or spending less in wages.

PS. Also, it is obligatory to mention in this context that creating money is a tax on savings, etc.

[MacAnDàil]

I found this person cutting out GAFAM interesting: https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five- ... 1831304194

[Ares Land]

Oh, were you saying that the economy is not zero sum in the sense that money can be created, loans can be granted, etc.? If so, I don't understand why it makes sense to say that in the context of taxation. My argument is that the newly minted money will also be sucked into the profitability vortex with high probability since the stock market is the primary mechanism by which capitalism operates. None of this precludes new companies from becoming more profitable than older ones, whether by providing better service or spending less in wages.

PS. Also, it is obligatory to mention in this context that creating money is a tax on savings, etc.

No, I mean in the sense that the economy isn't merely shuffling a finite quantity of money around; goods and services are created; and most often, the economy is growing (in the sense that more goods and services, or better ones are getting produced, or they're produced with less effort...)

I should say though the things can happen in the way you describe when the economy approaches a zero-sum game; wealth will concentrate.

This is one reason why inequalities have been rising. Note again, that this is not unescapable: Europe did a much better job at fighting inequality than the US did, despite low growth rates.

(I'm generally wary of monetary creation)

I found this person cutting out GAFAM interesting: https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five- ... 1831304194

That's a pretty good story! (Though isn't her boyfriend a little dense? How are can sending regular texts be?)

An interesting bit is how much everything depends on AWS these days. Which is a great service, I mean, but as an IT professional I do wonder how many people will be able to make anything run without AWS...

I do escape most of the tracking myself by using Firefox, set up to keep no history and no cookies; Google is being difficult about it, of course, which means I'll get rid of it soon-ish.

[sangi39]

About 3 weeks late, but I'm nowhere near as active on the ZBB as I used to be:

I've been wondering recently if a sort of "central vs. split" + "popular vs geographic" style of voting and elections might make sense (but this could be a UK-centric idea), e.g.:

1) There's some "House" which seats are elected (through some form of proportional representation), on a regional basis, but in a way that no individual region has a majority of seats (this does disproportionately underrepresent some regions at the expense of others)
2) There's some other "House" which is elected, across some larger region, on the basis of population alone (regardless of the number of regions mentioned above, the entire electoral sphere, at this level, would be equally divided on the basis of population)

This is much like the common upper house/lower house system, with the same strengths and drawbacks.

With the common situation of rural places being more conservative than urban ones, and with some careful staging of elections, beware that this has the result of making sure one house remains conservative no matter what damn fool idea the electorate gets.

There are advantages to having two houses. The more checks and balances the better! But I think we could try different ways to elect the upper houses.

I will concede that, typically, rural populations vote more to the "right" (for whatever reasons), but, if this goes alongside the development of a "class consciousness" shared between urban and rural working class populations as "we are, jointly, the proletariat", could that not support that goal of protecting local interests, i.e. the voicing of local concerns?

3) Decisions which effect a whole region require a) a majority of sub-regions to vote in favour of that change and b) a majority of the population within that region as a while vote in favour of that change (this, however, I think, is likely to stand in the way of break-away movements within the system, so perhaps moves towards self-determination should only be given local concern)

I think you'd have the same drawbacks with rural areas skewing conservative.

I do think that system would work great for the EU for instance, where the member countries have both more power than the UE itself, and a strong significance. Requiring majority vote would be a big step up! (Our current rule is that some decisions must be unanimous... which means Luxembourg and the Netherlands get to keep being tax havens...)
There is besides a strong case for member countries to be allowed to go to hell in their own private way.

I'm not sure this works in the US, for instance -- both the Electoral College and Senate ensure decision making is more conservative than the majority would wish... On the other hand maybe it's a matter of state boundaries sometimes not making much sense too. (Not an expert in US politics, but shouldn't California be two states? Shouldn't NYC and the rest of Long Island belong with New Jersey and Connecticut rather than with the rest of NY state? Why do you guys need two Dakotas? Shouldn't one be enough?)

Isn't the EU half the size of the US in terms of land area, and about 1/3 larger in terms of population? That could imply that it's an issue of "boundaries", as you've suggested. Like, if the US was divided up in a similar way to the EU, would the US "work better"?

Again though, I think this is one of those larger reforms that goes hand in hand with education. Rural areas might have there own legitimate concerns within a system that aims for large-scale equitable redistribution of resources, if that area's voice gets drowned out by some local urban majority, just because they happen to have more people ("rural conservatism", I think, isn't really that much of an issue as people think it is, once you throw out the old "they're taking your jobs" narrative that maintains it).

6) "top-tier" positions are actually devolved positions, e.g. you're not (or the larger council grouping isn't) electing one representative, but you're, instead, electing a person to a certain position (say, minister for health, finance, housing, the environment, etc.)

Can't disagree with that one!

Stole it from Switzerland and from posts further up in the thread. My main concern is that people are voting for single seat positions? So you'd have to decide on how those positions are voted for that isn't as "all or nothing" as FPTP.

7) Indirectly elected councils always serve in an advisory role to directly ones elected ones (

Ditto!

I don't know if any countries currently used this system, but it seemed like a nice compromise between "indirectly elected" and "directly elected" at higher levels of representation given that, as far as I can tell, a lot of voters seem to be disconnected from higher positions (especially at supranational levels like in the EU (although, again, I think some of that comes from a lack of political education and engagement)).

8) No person can serve more than two terms within an elected position
9) No person can switch directly from a directly elected position and vice versa

I don't know about that. In France we switched rather brutally from politicians that had been around basically forever to relative newcomers.

I'm of two minds about that.

On the plus side, the people who got kicked out deserved to be kicked out. I don't miss them in the slightest.
On the minus side, dear god the newcomers are incompetent. It's painfully obvious their one and only quality is being yes men.

The trouble with kicking out politician early is that the public don't really get to know them, so they depend on more prominent figures for survival, not their voters.
Looking across the borders, it looks like Germany keeps its politicians around basically forever and doesn't seem any less democratic or well-governed for it. (On the other hand, I gather Merkel is an historical accident and that German politicians are generally just as stupid as in country.)

This is why I always say "at a certain level", although I appear to have missed that out in the above.

For example, you can serve on the county level for two terms, but after that, you either ship out, or ship up to the country level, but I also think maybe there could be some leeway in the system given my point below, e.g. if people don't see anything wrong with your conduct within your position, maybe you can hang on for another term.

10) All elected representatives, regardless of "rank", are subject to an "end of term" judgemental procedure (I guess sort of like a mandatory impeachment, to use what I think might be the closest US terminology) - basically everyone is held accountable for any and all actions during time in office, and some randomly elected group of "constituents" and those trained in judicial procedure spend some amount of time going over it (since it's a political matter, though, I can see the need for the judicial portion to exist mostly to maintain proceedings)

In our last presidential campaign, there was an idea I liked a lot, much in the same vein: a procedure for voters to get rid of their representative if they're not happy with them.

I think this is just a VONC, right? But the move comes from the people directly, and is then supported by the judiciary (which could be tricky of you're trying to stick with separation of powers, but I don't see anything wrong with the judiciary being there to at least guide the process, leaving the ultimate decision to people outside of the judiciary, i.e. it's handled as a trail, but the judiciary are there mostly to maintain some semblance of sense, and the further the legitimacy of what is essentially a "people's court".

An "in-term" VONC, from a popular movement, should probably be handled in a similar way, e.g. if, at some point, some number of people within the community agree to a VONC, then that person is held within some state of political "limbo", but the ultimate decision lies with the elected officials.

11) There also be a level of sortition involved (honestly, I'm not sure if this is mostly me messing with my own system, but say 5% of any "official" is elected by sortition for like 6 months, just to have a voice)

As long as their opinion counts, yeah, go for it! (We had a randomly selected advisory council for environmental issues. The quality of their recommandations was extremely surprising! Of course we won't listen to them.)

That's why this is the idea I'm least certain of. It seems good in principal, but with (much) shorter terms, and making up a minority, they're probably just going to be there for show. Like, they'd still have the full rights bestowed upon fully elected officials in terms of being able to bring motions to the council, and being able to vote (that is, their role wouldn't, in practice, count for anything less), but really it probably would just be a section of governance with a minor voice... maybe...

And then you'd have stuff like "the wage of elected officials is tied to the average wage of people within that region +/- some level of expenses regarding travel.

Agreed on this!

Personally, I think this drags elected officials back towards the people they intend to represent. There's some monetary benefit to being an elected representative, but it's only as good as wider policies make it.

Staffing, I guess, could also be an issue. How do you handle the bureaucrats within that system? They can't each be elected by the public, so they have to be brought in by some other method.

I'm mostly in favor of hiring them just like you'd hire anyone else. There needs some kind of system whereby we'd get elite school graduates (ENA, Oxbridge, what have you) because these are great at their job and some out of the box thinkers. I don't know how you'd go about that, though!

Yeah, that makes sense. As long as there's an actual measure for what makes someone a good person for that position, I can't argue with that (maybe some board to prevent nepotism or cronyism?)

[Ares Land]

I liked Piketty's latest blog post. But I still don't know whether his proposals are brilliant or utter nonsense. I think you guys may find it interesting.

https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/202 ... e-for-all/

Executive summary: "Proposals are springing up everywhere: basic income, job guarantee, inheritance for all. (...) In the long run, they must all be implemented, in stages and in this order."

I have no particular qualms about the job guarantee, which is unproblematic and should have been done decades ago.

Inheritance for all adresses the issue of capital inequality, and I mean, Piketty deserves major kudos for figuring out the problem, and even pointing it out it exists in the first place. Then again...
A lot of capital in Western countries is locked up in real estate. A suburban house in the general Paris area is worth about one million euros now (and Londoners would think of that as an incredible bargain), and sure, some capital allocation would help...But how much?
There are multiple reasons why that house is worth one million: there's not enough real estate in the first place, transportation sucks in all major cities, much of that real estate isn't efficiently used (when not just left empty), interests rates are way too low, inflation goes unnoticed because it's not calculated properly, and given the doom and gloom economic climate of the last, oh, 40 years, people don't want to invest in anything but the very secure.
If you don't adress these problems, granting everyone 120,000 euros would just inflate prices a bit more. And if you do fix these problems, people don't need the capital grant.

I'm quite taken with the sheer elegance of UBI... But I've had questions for years now, which still remain unanswered, chiefly: how do we fund it in the first place? I don't see how this won't end up subsidizing badly paid jobs either. I'm not too comfortable with having people entirely dependant on the state either.

More importantly... I'm not sure there's much political support for these ideas, and I don't see the ideas gaining ground in the future. Most left-wingers I know are still undecided about UBI. I've run the 'inheritance for all' idea by several people, and most of them reject it. Rather violently, I should add, even people who are usually more left-wing than I am.