Live data from Hacker News

Working on Economics with Fable 5

wilsoniumite.com

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no optimal form of taxation, only trade-offs. There is shifting burdens from good to good or person to person. I find it no surprise that so many of the loudest proponents for georgism are highly compensated tech workers with low physical consumption - exactly the demographic that would be favored most under that system.

We tend to own property in places where land is expensive, we'd be paying hefty taxes in a Georgist system.

It would also help incentivize real improved use of expensive property, and less speculative investment without improvement, perhaps leading to lower prices (thus lower land value, and lower taxes), perhaps reaching some kind of equilibrium with better improved land use in expensive areas, less speculation resulting in the expensive areas being less expensive, and more equitable taxation than our current system.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, quite a bit actually. It's directly analogous to e.g. "Red sky at night, sailors' delight", i.e. a pseudo-scientific approach that probably has a better-than-random success rate.

So it’s a heuristic. Lots of very valuable heuristics exist.

And I'd agree if that's what GP said.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#53
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boy I sure love my ditch digging job for the government! My friend also loves his ditch filling job too!

You say this, but if the US actually expanded nationwide fiber like we were supposed to there would have been a whole lot of ditches to dig up and refill. Public works projects don’t have to be wasteful.

You may know this already, but we did lay the fiber already like we were supposed to have. Most of it just never got used until ~20 years later. Because corporations need to milk their profits.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being able to point out and articulate these issues. LLMs have a habit of laundering pre-existing concepts per the interests (or input) of any given user.

To be fair, human scientists also frequently launder small modifications to pre-existing work as if it's completely novel.

That's why I don't trust 'em neither!

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#56
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the text, your prompt, and model?

It was actual work output I generated a few weeks back with Sonnet 5. Not posting here for obvious reasons, but it was nothing special or engineered for Pangram deception.

The real reason being that it doesn't exist?

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no optimal form of taxation, only trade-offs. There is shifting burdens from good to good or person to person. I find it no surprise that so many of the loudest proponents for georgism are highly compensated tech workers with low physical consumption - exactly the demographic that would be favored most under that system.

We tend to own property in places where land is expensive, we'd be paying hefty taxes in a Georgist system.

I would expect that land usage favors the very rich, but not nearly as much as income.

Georgism does a excellent job of incentivising better land use, but is trivial to shelter income from.

A teacher renting a run down aprtment might have a similar land tax footprint to a tech ceo in a taller building, or maybe the ceo just teleworks from home in Wyoming.

xAI or whomever puts their next Mega server farm on undesirable land, and then operates basically tax-free.

The end of day problem with the Georgist theory is that we now live in a knowledge and information economy, not an industrial one governed by material inputs. Changing a 1 to a 0 on a string of bits might yeild a billion dollar profit, but requires no material overhead.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#60
post #8

the paper abstract is generated by ai: https://www.pangram.com/history/c480c94f-2d19-4cc3-95e0-c4fa...

It may well be, but also Pangram is ridiculously transparent pseudoscience. Let's not play pretend that it's authoritative, please. Edit: Just for fun I just defeated it with AI-generated text that it reported as 100% human-written. Great stuff. Truly genius scam.

Pangram 4?
Post reply on HN