Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moore's Law for Everything

moores.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#141

Post by larsiusprime »

notahacker wrote: post #113
larsiusprime wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which will tax you 100% of the value of your property If it's a property tax, yes. If it's a land tax, no. Under land tax you tax the "ground rent" value of the land, not what's built on it. "Ground rent" is what it costs to rent out your land if it was an empty lot with nothing on it. Property tax and land tax are very different things with very different effects.

The Georgist land value (which Altman suggests might be more practically replaced by a system linked to actual property transaction values) is still going to be a sufficiently large proportion of the value of a typical home to ensure pretty much anyone not living in a multistorey tenement block is paying massively higher tax rates on their home than anyone pays on a YC company.

One of the chief purposes of a land tax is to destroy the speculative activity which drives land prices up forever and ever.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#142

Post by colinmhayes »

zz865 wrote: post #81

I still dont really know about AI taking over the world. The most expensive things in my budget are housing, car, healthcare, childcare, flights/hotels, food. Does AI really change that much? There are definitely too many over-educated people out there already, I'd think this is more of an impact & setting up disappointment than the bots.

Robots building houses on cheap land due to mass work form home would make housing much cheaper. Robot doctors make healthcare much cheaper. Robot teachers make childcare/education much cheaper. Robot farmers + GMO make food much cheaper.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#143

Post by csbartus »

csomar wrote: post #103

> democracy can become antagonistic as people seek to vote money away from each other. ... > We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor I find it amazing that these "thinkers" don't see the irony. You are "afraid" that people are going to vote you away from your wealth via democracy; but then you feel privileged to decide how this wealth should be taxed. Since AIs are getting smarter than humans, m…

> Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this new world.

Right, we've become disposable. Up until the computer era we were part of the equation. We went to war, to vote, and we paid taxes - making ourselves useful for state and capital.

Now, they don't need us anymore. We are a burden for the state (universal basic income) and capital plays its own game (high frequency trading).

Samuel Butler was right in Erewhon (1872): "Advertising is the way we grant power to the machine"

AI is powered by advertising, by the data we voluntarily feed into the machine. For the false reward of shining the ego.

Yes, we must admit, as a specie we are highly disappointing. Instead of lifting ourselves we've created a monster above us.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#144

Post by wmf »

dgellow wrote: post #91
iMuzz wrote: post #24

Great read. > “We could do something called the American Equity Fund. The American Equity Fund would be capitalized by taxing companies above a certain valuation 2.5% of their market value each year, payable in shares transferred to the fund..” I could be in favor of something like this. However, I’d be curious to hear Sam’s thoughts on what kind of vehicle do we use to ensure that this equity actually reaches end-us…

Slightly off topic regarding the 1.9T: Where did the rest go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_20...

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#145

Post by goesnowhere »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #106
larsiusprime wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which will tax you 100% of the value of your property If it's a property tax, yes. If it's a land tax, no. Under land tax you tax the "ground rent" value of the land, not what's built on it. "Ground rent" is what it costs to rent out your land if it was an empty lot with nothing on it. Property tax and land tax are very different things with very different effects.

In high-demand cities, the land is the expensive part—not the house on top of it.

Yeah thats kinda the point.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#146

Post by dudeman13 »

fastball wrote: post #99
randyrand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been watching videos about tribes in Papa New Guniea and it makes you realize you don’t need very much for clothes or shelter. Food is all you really need. For luxury: food, sex, and purpose. The tribes have all 3.

You should probably move out there then.

Need

Want

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#147

Post by michael1999 »

ravi-delia wrote: post #62
heleninboodler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation? If there is, it's somewhere beyond launching sports cars into orbit.

See that's exactly the thing. We can point to excess today and say "How could that be sustainable" but it seems like the novelty would wear off, no? Like in some hypothetical future where resources are 1000x more available, would people launch 1000 cars into space? It seems unlikely. Somehow I feel like there is some inelasticity to consumption that we just haven't reached yet. I'm not quite sure why I feel like that…

Ever watch someone burn $500 in gas running a boat for an afternoon?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#148

Post by Aunche »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #114
Aunche wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property values generally rise because an area has a very attractive jobs market. Overall, it's a benefit to society to incentivize people with no income to move out an area with a lower cost of living. This incentivizes more people move there and do productive work, which can be taxed and distributed.

I just find something very cold and socially undesirable in the idea that somebody can spend a lifetime putting in the work to get the home they want, only to be forced out because "society" decides they are no longer productive. I'm no NIMBY—those people shouldn't have the right to stop others from developing their own properties—but I'm not sure I like the idea of economic incentives kicking the least productive to…

If being taxed 2.5% a year counts as being "forced out," then staying in a highly productive area of land indefinitely is "forcing" people who can otherwise move to your house to stay poor. Never mind that it's the wealthy are the ones who benefit from elimination of property taxes.

It's society that makes the property valuable in the first place, so it makes sense to pay society back. The firefighters, schools, and social workers in your area need to get paid extra to account for the cost of living increases. That money should come from the people benefit the most from their services, the property owners.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#149

Post by colinmhayes »

xrd wrote: post #59

There are some really smart ideas in here, and some really smart assessments of existing policies. The thing I was most taken aback by was Sam's suggestion to tax privately held land, and capital (as opposed to labor tax). I would love to have Sam and PG go toe to toe and discuss how Sam's proposal is different from the wealth tax post PG made. I don't immediately see how Sam's idea avoids the "wealth tax compounds"…

The estimation of 15% loss of market cap due to the 2.5% cap tax is laughable. That is effectively a reverse buyback of 2.5% every year. It would leave many companies with 0 or negative profit. Any company with P/E above 40 immediately loses money. 20 has their profit chopped in half. The values of these companies would be reduced by at least 50%.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#150

Post by Dylan16807 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #135
colinmhayes wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree but that's really not a good analogy. Horses aren't people. When their jobs disappear no one gives a fuck. No one speaks up for their interests. People will not go so easy. They are able to create amazing things if given the opportunity. No one wants mass human unemployment.

You realize it's an allegory, right?

It's fine to reply to an allegory with "you're right, that solution doesn't work, but it doesn't preclude other solutions because of these reasons, so don't use it to make decisions".
Post reply on HN