liber8

Anyways, it still seems to me that taxes are one of the primary tools we have to effect change, and the taxes themselves (individually or together with what we then do with the money generated) can fulfill most, if not all, of the categories on Donella's list.

There are a limited number of ways to have any substantial effect on a bottom-up system like the economy in a free society. You can pass laws forbidding some activity, or offering benefits to try to encourage some activity. You can raise taxes to make an activity prohibitively expensive compared to the desired alternative. You can educate (or propagandize) the population to recognize or believe something. You can conscript people and force them to behave in a certain way (tough in a free society). There aren't too many other options.

When we're discussing how to increase growth, it's not really helpful to say that we should ignore one of the primary levers we have to play with, because that lever isn't nearly as powerful as "changing the paradigm". Okay, great, but what specific actions should we take (i.e. what lever should we play with) to change the paradigm, other than the lever we're talking about?

It seems to me that subsidies and taxes are obvious ways to shift the mindset of the system or "transcend paradigms" since we know taxes actually influence behavior. Look at sin taxes on smoking in the U.S., which not only directly reduced smoking but in turn have helped fund anti-smoking propaganda, which together have helped the rate of smoking in the U.S. plummet. Is this what is meant by "transcending paradigms" or "shifting mindsets"? If so, doesn't that really mean that taxes or subsidies can be one of the most effective ways to influence an economy?

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the...

This is clearly a treasure hunt or an art project, right?

edit: also, the instagram is pretty artsy: https://www.instagram.com/lot2046/

BTW, it's not that anyone who has problems with things like the CFPB is necessarily ANTI-REGULATION. It's just hard to grasp how much regulation exists if you're not involved in this industry. And you need to consider the consequences of this kind of regulation. You can't complain that banks are too big to fail if you're simultaneously implementing regulation (even with the best of intentions) that is directly driving banks to get bigger and bigger.

If you haven't read Titan, it's a fascinating bio.

Not to be too cheeky, but do you have any evidence to support your claim that we would have more monopolies without government intervention?

If you look back through U.S. history, how many monopolies has the government actually broken up? Not many. And I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the threat of antitrust action by the government is what has limited the existence of monopolies.

On the flip side, the government has created or protected thousands of monopolies. As the parent mentioned, virtually every city in the U.S. has granted monopolies to local service providers. On a grander scale, U.S. policy has long perpetuated monopolies for the likes of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel by imposing tariffs on foreign goods and raising barriers to entry through licensing and other regulatory hurdles.

It seems self evident to me that for at least the last 200 years U.S. governments in total have done far more to foster monopolies than they have to dismantle them.

Frankly, given how news is now consumed, it's very possible we're living in alternate realities. The PATRIOT outrage I was referring to was circa 2002. Where I lived, the media reported vociferous outrage from democrats and nonchalance from republicans. Since "Obama" has wielded--and greatly expanded--the state's surveillance powers, I have not heard anywhere near the same objection from democrats. (Note that I say "Obama" because I have no idea whether and to what extent he has actually overseen the NSA's actions; its entirely possible much of these programs have been hidden from the executive branch for decades, which is frankly much more worrisome).

The few polls i just looked at seem to back up this flip-flop:

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/12/news/la-pn-republica... ["With President Obama in the White House, Democrats stand in support of the NSA’s methods, 49% to 40% in the Gallup survey. Republicans were opposed 63% to 32%. When President George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were supportive of government surveillance efforts and Democrats opposed."]

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/poll-... ["Interestingly, the most intense opposition to the programs comes from the political right. Republicans disapprove of the program by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Independents disapprove, 56 to 34 percent. But 49 percent of Democrats approve of the program, compared with 40 percent who disapprove."]

I don't share your believe that Trump won't seek to use surveillance for his own purposes. Not because I think he's a horrible person, but simply because people use the tools at their disposal, especially in times of stress or emergency. Of course, the president of the U.S. deals with nothing but stress and emergencies.

Finally, I don't think anyone's fear is based off a failure to communicate the programs effectively. If the programs were wildly successful, those successes would be publicized by now. The NSA needs some good publicity. By the way, negative publicity the NSA can't avoid is largely its own fault. It's current slogan is "Your Data: If You Have Nothing to Hide, You Have Nothing to Fear" https://nsa.gov1.info/data/ I'm not sure you could come up with a more Orwellian slogan if you tried.

Please show where I said anything about the "left".

This is a problem that both democrats and republicans suffer from. Remember when the PATRIOT Act was proposed and enacted? Most democrats thought it was an unbelievably unconstitutional overreach that would be the end of the world, and republicans mostly saw it as a necessary tool that didn't even really have any constitutional concerns worth mentioning. Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. This happens every single time.

*I would also note that journalists' "tolerance" for the NSA programs over the last 8 years is essentially tacit support. Nearly all of the network media's coverage of the NSA issues over the last few years has been centered on whether the effectiveness of the programs justify their existence. There has been virtually no network condemnation of these programs based on their illegality and unconstitutionality, whereas that was a major focus from 2001 to 2007.

"Well, sure, unconstitutional power grabs are tolerable when someone I like is in power, but this new guy is bad!" Yes, that's how it always works. That's explicitly the reason our government was designed the way it was. Why do educated people forget this every time "their guy" gets into power?

The problem is the lack of housing supply. Get rid of the ridiculous regulations, allow more stock to be built, and revel in all the free foreign money that's being showered on your city.

Yes, more housing stock is going to change the "charm" of your little haven. Guess what? Cities change. All of your precious cities are nothing like they were 50 years ago. That's how life goes. Every alternative you have results in a change to the status quo: (1) do nothing and watch all the artists and misfits (then the middle class) get priced out of the city, (2) impose even more regulations to try to keep rents affordable (which is never a solution, see San Francisco), or (3) build more housing.

Only one of these solutions makes any sense. But, no surprise, it's always easier to blame the foreigners than it is to risk your political capital.

If anything, I think people want to have more of the interesting parts of their lives be more public (in other words, they want to be "famous", whether just among their friends or on a bigger stage). They do want many things to be "private" in the sense that they don't want certain people to see certain things online. But I think we're deluding ourselves if we think they care at all about the fact that google is scanning their emails or search history, or that twitter is mining their tweets, or that snapchat is using their location data.

I'll also note that I fundamentally disagree with your statement. Everyone has an opportunity to create their own success. Obviously not everyone has the same kinds of opportunities or the same number of opportunities. Those of us with enough time to comment on Hacker News probably have dozens of opportunities PER DAY to create our own success, whereas a poor black kid from Baltimore may only have one, and it may require him to wake up at 4am to go to work or stay up till midnight to educate himself. But those opportunities still exist, even if you're poor.

This is one of the biggest reasons I dislike the lottery, from a societal perspective: it satisfies people who would otherwise have an incentive to go out and create their own success. You can see this anytime the jackpots get big enough that non-players buy tickets. There is a noticeable drop in productivity as people sit back and fantasize about winning $1 billion or more. Instead of actually doing something that would improve their lives, they're happy sitting in the dark and fantasizing. If that's a one-day a year occurrence, fine. But its clearly not a one-day occurrence to the regular players, and I think it negatively impacts their lives far beyond the actual cost of the tickets.

What is different about the Universal Fund? Is this just the formal announcement of what was already in place? Also, will Teespring be matching the recurring donations that were already in place before this announcement? Thanks!

Figure out fusion and our water problems are solved.

Of course, in the meantime you think we'd at least consider pricing water as a resource and let supply and demand control the price. Instead, we implement this ludicrous system of encouraging neighbors to tattle on each other.

I'm assuming this is a typo, but I can't quite make out what you mean. Are you saying that inheritance is the heart of, presumably, the capitalism in practice today?

Even if we accept this as true, I don't think it refutes the main point that delayed gratification is the heart of capitalism. Even if you have inherited capital, this is almost certainly because your ancestor practiced delayed gratification. That capital was accumulated because someone didn't gratify himself by spending it. Simply because the current owner of the capital didn't have to delay gratification to get it doesn't mean that delayed gratification isn't the ultimate source of that capital (nor does it mean the current owner doesn't practice delayed gratification to keep or grow that capital).

Of course, in some very, very rare instances (which of course are highly publicized, so it's what we immediately think of when we think of "inherited wealth"), so much wealth gets accumulated that its more or less impossible to spend it all, and thus no delayed gratification is necessary. But, pick out any time frame, and you'll find that the vast majority of this hallowed class of inheritors squander the inherited wealth by the end of the third generation. If they managed not to, it’s almost certainly because they have learned to practice delayed gratification.