Tariffs are incredibly regressive, add in the likely job losses and wage losses, and poorer people are going to be the biggest losers.
131 karma · joined August 26, 2017
The US has dominated radical innovations, China has excelled in incremental innovations. We're potentially throwing away our advantage in the former by decimating our research capacity (something conspicuously absent in your concept of what drives innovation), and there is no clear plan to take the necessary steps to rebuild our capacity in the latter.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-ov...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/defaul...
1. While there might be attempts to "juke" 409a valuations, a tax on capital appreciation still makes founders wealthier if their stock holdings appreciates in value. They might get 75 cents for every dollar of appreciation due to taxes, but it's irrational to think there isn't an incentive to continue growing their companies and wealth.
2. In order to maintain control of their companies, and avoid taxation, it's possible for companies to create separate classes of voting, non-voting, and sometimes super-voting shares. Even though only one of GOOG and GOOGL holds voting power, they still trade relatively closely in value.
3. Founders of privately held companies can choose who they want to sell their shares to. It's possible they might sell them to closely-tied venture capital firms or pension funds. I don't know why you're so concerned about foreign purchasers, when they already have the ability to purchase public and private companies. It's not like anything is changing in that regard.
4. The amount of currency in circulation might seem relatively small, but pales in comparison to the $29 trillion held in savings accounts and Money Market Funds. The NASDAQ had $300 billion in transactions on Tuesday October 26th, so dollar liquidity is hardly an issue. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DailyMarketSumma...
5. It's possible that some existing billionaires will attempt to avoid these taxes, but it's hard to expect that future founders will have the foresight to prematurely sacrifice founding their business in a country that attracts investment and talent.
It's certainly possible, but if founding a business in the USA is a common characteristic among billionaire founders, it's hard to imagine entrepreneurs who aren't yet billionaires will take their business somewhere else due to the potential future tax consequences of becoming a billionaire.
This paper was published in 1970, but it demonstrated how markets can fail, as well as a method of correcting that failure. Imagine the following scenario:
There's a used car market of private sellers that is comprised of a mixture of peaches (good) and lemons (bad). To keep it simple, let's assume we're just talking about one model of car.
Additionally, there's no way to identify which car is a lemon, but it's known that they're worth much less than a peach because of the much higher cost of maintenance.
If you have a market where the above conditions exist (only seller knows if car is lemon/peach, and a mixture of lemons/peaches), you'd potentially end up with a market failure.
This is because sellers of peaches can't get the price they want for their car, whereas sellers of lemons can profit over the expected value of theirs.
The problem with assuming that lemons would be removed from the market is that any buyer of a lemon would want to sell it once they've realized what they purchased, putting it back on the market. This effect compounds to where a greater percentage of cars being sold on the market are lemons, further depressing the price and removing peaches from the market.
Akerlof's solution to fix the market was to introduce warranties. Owners of peaches would be willing to offer warranties, because they trusted the quality of the cars they were selling. Eventually, buyers would see the lack of a warranty as the indication of a car being a lemon, forcing the sellers of lemons to either offer a warranty or lower their asking price below the market price of the vehicle.
His work applied to the function of other markets, like insurance (older people are the costliest for health insurance companies) and employment markets (Certain classes of people have difficulty finding a job despite similar skills), as well as the institutions that have formed (Medicare, professional licensing) to improve the functioning of these markets.
I'm glad he supports Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), but I think he's going about this the wrong way.
Right now, he's creating a new third-party within an electoral system that effectively defaults to two existing and dominant parties. Those two parties currently control every federal and state legislature and/or election committee that has the power to alter how elections are run.
Working against them, in a system that is extremely hostile to third-parties, makes it very hard to effect change because you are almost always guaranteed to be a loser, and be viewed as an opponent.
If his interests are truly about implementing RCV nationwide, a better course of action would be to endorse and campaign for the Democratic and Republican candidates that are willing to commit to implementing RCV.
In any state where you can get a filibuster-proof majority of those candidates elected, you would have a much better chance of changing the electoral system.
Simply put, lobbying for RCV would be more effective than introducing a third-party within our current electoral system.
One woman was conducting the tour for three people, when they stopped at one of these all-white paintings.
She was describing the potential meaning behind the work, and noted that sometimes the artist expresses textures, or covers some background work.
It's hard to describe, but I felt this sort of absurdist joy when I watched all four of them lean in very closely for half a minute, only to discover absolutely nothing unique about the work in its texture or color.
Maybe sometimes art isn't made for the observer, but the observer's observer.
By trying to connect to a http:// website instead of https://, the redirect will work, allowing you to authenticate your device and access the internet.
As a group of people, a company is entitled to free speech just like an individual. By restricting their ability to terminate someone for their poor representation of the company, you're effectively forcing them to accept speech that could jeopardize their ability to conduct future business.
A free democracy means speech is free from restriction by the government, but doesn't mean the person speaking is free of consequences from their peers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2019/08/26/high...
https://opendorse.com/blog/top-100-highest-paid-athlete-endo...
Yet, this article from Sports Illustrated claims Derrick Rose and John Wall have multi-million dollar endorsement deals with Adidas that would have been active in 2019.
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/06/derrick-rose-adidas-sneake...
This article from Forbes claims footballers like Sergio Ramos and Luis Suárez earned more than $1 million through endorsements in 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2019/06/18/the...
It might not be an order of magnitude, but there are certainly many more professional athletes who earned more than $1 million in endorsements in 2019.
The Confederate currency wasn't backed by any assets, so it lost value as their defeat became more likely. Apparently, it lost 20% of it's value after the battle of Gettysburg.
Zimbabwe's government seized the land of white farmers and gave them to people who lacked farming knowledge and experience. Predictably, their output cratered, sparking the hyperinflationary spiral.
Germany lost a huge amount of it's productive capabilities due to the Treaty of Versailles. Keynes wrote a fantastic book (The Economic Consequences of Peace) that lays the economic case for why the Treaty would be a disaster. Germany basically had much of its land, equipment, and other assets seized while also being saddled with significant war debts. They were effectively forced into hyperinflation by the structure of the treaty.
This means that they tend to heat homes more inefficiently than in places that are used to very cold weather.
If they did run afoul of these regulations, it's probably advisable to not admit it on televised interviews.
That would also explain why they accepted a $1 billion investment rather than expanding their credit lines, and continued to limit purchases of Gamestop stock.
Monday at open, when last week's option contracts are settled, is going to be interesting.
1. Beef that sells within 35 days at regular price 2. Beef that sells within 60 days as a discounted price 3. Beef that sells after 60 days for a loss.
The beef's regular price has to be somewhat higher than in an efficient market because some of it will be sold at a loss.
Getting an order for a set amount per week allows him to disregard the losses he normally has from beef that has to be sold for dog food, because the purchaser is guaranteeing their quantity, smoothing their expectations on how much beef to purchase in the future.
It's possible that at $18 a pound, without any waste, he's making the same margins/profit as he would at $34 with some waste.
Incentives - While such a system seems better for workers, it doesn't show any benefit for entrepreneurs or investors. Why would anyone start such a business if they lose control almost immediately? What is the incentive for investment if it doesn't come with the potential for a return?
Competitive Advantage - The reason you'd need an authoritarian government is because anyone using a traditional ownership model would have an advantage against these types of companies. As we've seen in cooperatives, one-person-one-vote creates freerider and horizon problems, and the pressure to form smaller firms would eliminate the economies of scale that many firms today enjoy.
This feels more like a political solution, and seems liable to succumb to predictable economic behaviors.
1. Using "true story," then telling a very general story without any citation. That he did it twice was worrying.
2. People like the writer who treat our current understanding of science as if it were a religious text that is complete. Science is an ongoing process of discovery and experimentation to try to further our understanding of the world. The fact that it's wrong is kinda the point, because it motivates us to challenge the assumptions underlying our theories.
3. The story about his mother losing her job is likely true, but the way he tells is seems like it purposely omits relevant information.
For example, he says his mother lost her job as a "social worker," but according to this wedding announcement (https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/06/style/alexandra-roosevelt...), she was the Director of Social Services at Hillcrest Convalescent Hospital in Long Beach, CA.
I also checked the Federal Register for that date, and it seems that the change also included an exception to the bachelors degree requirement, provided the individual had two years experience. His claim in the article that his mother had 20 years of experience should have been sufficient.
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr054/fr054021/fr054021... Page 135
"In § 483.15(g), we are requiring that social services be provided by a qualified individual defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in social work or two years experience in a health care setting working directly with patients or clients, or similar professional qualifications."
When the company tried to raise the fare to 7 cents, they were disallowed by the courts because they couldn't prove the 5 cents fare was confiscatory.
I understand the city could raise the fare to benefit the company, but that isn't their obligation.
I would assume you're libertarian from the point you've made, and am curious whether you believe it was right for the contract to be enforced as it was agreed upon.