@SimonLermenAI@jankulveit Tyler’s argument may well have many holes, but this ain’t one of ‘em.
If your p(doom) is high & short term, short the market and live high off the hog.
If p(doom) high but longer term, you still want to borrow all that you possibly can and spend it like there is no tomorrow.
@MattWhitlock No he is not stupid.
He is disingenuous and a politician seeking higher office in uber-leftist CA.
He may well just be a midwit.
But he’s not stupid. He knows what he’s doing in his hard-left pandering.
@CoreyLeander@bryan_caplan You should be very worried about your “law and history” bit.
Historians in 2024 ranked Biden #14 on list of greatest presidents. https://t.co/xqcGVDnD5N
@dwarkesh_sp Having more talented young people go work for non-profits is a bad idea. For society, and for the world.
please go read some Arnold Kling Substack posts if you need to better understand why.
@scotthar_tx@PhilWMagness@Reinsch84 I find it intensely amusing that Obama is referred to today as a “neoliberal”. He surely was not.
More amusing - and yet no longer shocking - is that as president he was indeed closer to that than the median leftist of today.
@JasonSorens “Tax expenditures” implies that the government has a fundamental right to the money denied to it by the tax laws.
while perhaps reasonable for a few such carveout, it is pure leftist framing for most of the money calculated.
@GarettJones@dwarkesh_sp I’d definitely bet with you on 2050 > 1/3.
for 2100 you more likely than not are right, IMO, but not simply based on the argument of 1900. Robots that could replace most humans at most jobs are what is a different thing, even more than “AGI”.
@dwarkesh_sp But the bigger problem is the people who will use your arguments as justification for higher taxes - on capital worst) or anything else - NOW!
@dwarkesh_sp The thing that is “‘dumb” about this scenario (ok, there might be many dumb things) is that 51% death taxes would cover it. When we are rich enough to be close to what you are talking about, making those taxes global - enforcing them that is - isn’t necessarily harder.
@Object_Zero_@dwarkesh_sp Overstated, but mostly correct.
Dwarkesh and Trammell make a decent enough case for high death taxes (which are wealth taxes, of course) but not for much of anything else.
@garrytan I agree with you.
Death taxes, property taxes and progressive consumption taxes (in no particular order) all vastly superior to capital taxes. Nothing Dwarkesh has suggested changes this.
@dwarkesh_sp@pawtrammell “Inequality seems especially hard to justify in this world.”
This is an unbelievably (and somewhat uncharacteristically) statist view.
No, using The monopoly power of violence to impose your view on others is what is hard to justify.
@markvalorian Player and coaching and GM decisions are based on winning games and championships.
League rules decisions are based on viewing experience and revenue.
Ain’t that complicated. Differing incentives.
@LevAkabas But surely this is primarily because the “average” two point shot is taken much closer to the basket now, with a much higher percentage of dunks and layups.
so misleading headline.
@fritzglitchwork@Mark_J_Perry@DominicJPino@jmhorp@ATabarrok You’re right.
you couldn’t buy iPhones or the Internet or so many other things back then, and quality of healthcare was worse. They attempt to quality adjust it, but that’s difficult too.
So it probably understates reality somewhat - i.e. people today are even richer.