I think that's an incomplete summary; a major driver of this is the difference in availability of success (at least according to older generation's standards) between older and younger generations.
Divide evenly by number of people? It's really not that difficult.
Instead of calling my argument horrendous with no justification, maybe you could try engaging with it. I, too, would like to just call you a right-wing libertarian nutjob or something like that and move on with life,…
Nope. I would argue that most parents want that because the economic system we live in compels them to.
Actually, we live in quite a dystopian reality. Your only argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I never said that a child should not benefit from their caretakers. Only that they should not inherit economic wealth which…
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. UBI would raise rents and therefore encourage sprawl.
And I don't want you to be able to do that. If this is supposed to be a rational position you're going to need more justification than "you want it".
Why not? Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Having this safety net available for everyone and not just the rich would reduce the need for wealth hoarding in the first place. Your ideology has no…
That's exactly the problem. It would encourage unsustainable sprawl to a massive degree.
I think the bigger issue than lending is that if it's not funded with a land value tax then all the increase in income will be eaten up in rent.
That's not wage theft though. You can't be paid after you're dead. Inheritance is just legalized aristocracy.
I think these enormous tracts of suburban and rural land that were populated with government subsidies and no real economic reason to exist should be slowly and gracefully depopulated, with people settling denser areas…
> They offer a certain quality of life many desire. But at an enormous cost to the environment, tax base, and economic resilience of society. It's legitimate for people in the cities to ask whether they want to keep…
How is it science? We literally have direct empirical evidence that suggests the contrary, but physicists do complicated mental gymnastics to come up with other explanations that fit their preconceived notions better.
It's only inconsistent if you assume information can't travel faster than the speed of light, for which there is no basis besides gospel.
It turns out if you make unjustified assumptions (information can't travel faster than light) you can make unjustified conclusions (no hidden variables).
On an aggregate scale it doesn't make sense to talk about a system based on "saving". You can't eat money in retirement. So retirees are always extracting some fraction of the productive output of current labor. This…
I'm with you up until the left has never been "for the people", like wat?
In this case property tax (the non-land component of it) only exacerbates the problem though.
You're projecting our experience of time onto what is a timeless mathematical essence. The idea that OP is referring to is that the universe "exists" simply because it is internally consistent.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... for a detailed analysis of this effect
It sounds like you are advocating something like IP mercantilism which is even worse than the original mercantilism considering that IP is not a zero-sum commodity. It should be distributed as widely as possible.
It's really not. SF public policy can barely be counted as liberal and seeing people on HN calling it "leftist" is maddening.
SF and California at large is run by liberal Democrats, but that's a far cry from actual leftism.
Finance and markets are not the same thing though.
I think that's an incomplete summary; a major driver of this is the difference in availability of success (at least according to older generation's standards) between older and younger generations.
Divide evenly by number of people? It's really not that difficult.
Instead of calling my argument horrendous with no justification, maybe you could try engaging with it. I, too, would like to just call you a right-wing libertarian nutjob or something like that and move on with life,…
Nope. I would argue that most parents want that because the economic system we live in compels them to.
Actually, we live in quite a dystopian reality. Your only argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I never said that a child should not benefit from their caretakers. Only that they should not inherit economic wealth which…
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. UBI would raise rents and therefore encourage sprawl.
And I don't want you to be able to do that. If this is supposed to be a rational position you're going to need more justification than "you want it".
Why not? Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Having this safety net available for everyone and not just the rich would reduce the need for wealth hoarding in the first place. Your ideology has no…
That's exactly the problem. It would encourage unsustainable sprawl to a massive degree.
I think the bigger issue than lending is that if it's not funded with a land value tax then all the increase in income will be eaten up in rent.
That's not wage theft though. You can't be paid after you're dead. Inheritance is just legalized aristocracy.
I think these enormous tracts of suburban and rural land that were populated with government subsidies and no real economic reason to exist should be slowly and gracefully depopulated, with people settling denser areas…
> They offer a certain quality of life many desire. But at an enormous cost to the environment, tax base, and economic resilience of society. It's legitimate for people in the cities to ask whether they want to keep…
How is it science? We literally have direct empirical evidence that suggests the contrary, but physicists do complicated mental gymnastics to come up with other explanations that fit their preconceived notions better.
It's only inconsistent if you assume information can't travel faster than the speed of light, for which there is no basis besides gospel.
It turns out if you make unjustified assumptions (information can't travel faster than light) you can make unjustified conclusions (no hidden variables).
On an aggregate scale it doesn't make sense to talk about a system based on "saving". You can't eat money in retirement. So retirees are always extracting some fraction of the productive output of current labor. This…
I'm with you up until the left has never been "for the people", like wat?
In this case property tax (the non-land component of it) only exacerbates the problem though.
You're projecting our experience of time onto what is a timeless mathematical essence. The idea that OP is referring to is that the universe "exists" simply because it is internally consistent.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... for a detailed analysis of this effect
It sounds like you are advocating something like IP mercantilism which is even worse than the original mercantilism considering that IP is not a zero-sum commodity. It should be distributed as widely as possible.
It's really not. SF public policy can barely be counted as liberal and seeing people on HN calling it "leftist" is maddening.
SF and California at large is run by liberal Democrats, but that's a far cry from actual leftism.
Finance and markets are not the same thing though.