151–160 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thailand is fine until you get into trouble which requires authorities of any kind. It is what "3rd world" is all about.
I haven't researched much about this but India seems like a better fit for tech workers? There I'll find folks who share my interest and the culture is good too.
> “They all talked about having a golf simulator room—I’ve never heard of this thing before, but they all had it,” Why are wealthy people so much into golf? It seems like the dullest of activities. Is it just because other rich people say they like golf, and they're all such conformists?
It's not really my cup of tea, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No, I won't play golf, it's playing marbles for people who don't want to bend down." - Youp van het Hek Jokes aside, it's because it is a way to signal that you are part of the in-group by sharing in a particular activity. And what better way than to make that the kind of activity that implicitly shows off your privilege? Golf involves a large amount of grass fields set aside and maintained just for you and your fri…
I think it also allows for talking and doing business deals at the same time. Other sports don’t have that, unless it’s a board game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing. So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming. I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad. I feel sad for anyone w…
> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy. If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM ). He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in…
"To those at Google watching this who don't know the story: Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week -- obviously reluctantly and under pressure. The only reason you're seeing this guys is because power is doing damage control. . Wake the f** up."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London isn't exactly a model of urban planning. There is a massive shortage of housing. And you end up with all new developments concentrated in a handful of areas.
I agree but if 100,000 homes became available tomorrow in London they’d sell in an instant. I don’t think any number will solve it - the problem is existing homes not being lived in and being used as income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." In this country there was a time yes where inheriting it is shady and it’s something I fear our c…
It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here. If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative. It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earn…
The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system.
This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for.
This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here.
There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest answer is land value tax
Except that’s explicitly discouraging vacant lots and encouraging tall buildings. These owners can afford the tax better than anyone.
Yes these owners 'can afford' more but it will definitely discourage what OP was talking about that it's just land banking for future asset appreciation. The land value on this kind of property is extremely high so tax is not low even if it's a tall building
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here. If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative. It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earn…
I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it. The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferenti…
> the heirs did not earn or work for.
> heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for.
In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"- and family- building ambition, which in subjective utility terms to them is superior to alternative uses of that wealth. Perhaps they've been working all their life for this motivation, it drives many people. A perceived level of accomplishment that extends post-death.
That's the nature of a decentralized, high-freedom world. X and Y will often transact and it's not clear what the subjective value exchange is.
As long as that transaction isn't hurting you through negative externalities, it's my opinion that you have no business interfering in that transaction.
> I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care.
If at age 60, they buy 500 Ferraris, that's okay. If at age 60, they instead send that wealth to their kids, that's not okay.
The former transaction (wealth Ferraris) is okay.
The latter transaction (wealth subjective value from family/empire-building) is not okay.
Personally, if I was rich, I would derive much higher subjective value from giving that wealth to my kids than buying 500 Ferraris.
> The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am.
I would say yes, because it was a voluntary exchange from the charity to that individual. We've no business in interfering in that.
We may think that the purpose of the charity is stupid, but that's the private, decentralized decision that they've come to with their own wealth.
> It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.
In practice, it so often ends with an undesirable outcome. If we did a 100% inheritance tax, do we know the impact on frivolous consumption or people's motivations?
In theory, nobody is really a utilitarian anyway, people's determinations come from biological/a priori frameworks and a subjective sense of fairness and justice with a tinge of impact from jealousy and self-interest (I'm not accusing you of that).
Reasoning from a set of basic axioms which generally, but not always, point in the right direction has a better track record, in my opinion.
> (like plots of lands)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it also allows for talking and doing business deals at the same time. Other sports don’t have that, unless it’s a board game.
Agreed on the first part, that's where being a proxy for taking a walk comes into play. But regarding the second part: almost any lawn game would qualify for that, no? This could also be done over a game of horseshoes or Kubb. But that would miss all the other the gatekeeping, in-group signaling qualities mentioned. Although maybe croquet qualifies as posh enough... Now you're having me wonder if we can categorize la…