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

Working on Economics with Fable 5

wilsoniumite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#81

Post by wat10000 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #78
estearum wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can consume land of no value and produce huge amounts of value from it, that's a good thing. They should be entitled to as much upside as they can produce.

Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.

I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#82

Post by estearum »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #78
estearum wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can consume land of no value and produce huge amounts of value from it, that's a good thing. They should be entitled to as much upside as they can produce.

Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.

Which political ideology wants taxation generally to create market distortions?

Virtually every political persuasion favors some types of Pigouvian taxes, which are deliberately designed to do this, but which believe that it's generally good for a tax to be distortive by its own merits?

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#83

Post by estearum »

ekelsen wrote: post #80
estearum wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya bro it's totally not possible to defeat a detection system that, in its own marketing on contrived, game-able benchmarks that they created , claims only a 99.6% true negative rate. It has literally never been done. What a hilarious inversion of credulity.

So show us the prompt

As stated, it's work product. Not a toy "adversarial prompt," so I won't be posting it here.

And as stated, even Pangram's own marketing material claims at least a 0.4% false negative rate on their own contrived corpus. A one in 250 event is hardly even rare.

You seem quite defensive about Pangram, and it shows up in a few of your comments. Is there a reason for that? If it's extending to outright denial of Pangram's own stated error rates... sheesh... very weird indeed (unless they're paying you, obviously).

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#84

Post by s1artibartfast »

estearum wrote: post #82
s1artibartfast wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.

Which political ideology wants taxation generally to create market distortions? Virtually every political persuasion favors some types of Pigouvian taxes, which are deliberately designed to do this, but which believe that it's generally good for a tax to be distortive by its own merits?

I said minimizing distortion isnt a purpose , not that I find i find it desirable on its own merits.

So as you point out, one large segment of voters are interested in pigovian taxes. I think there is also a large overlapping segment that want taxes to optimize or reform behavior absent externalities for things they don't like.

However, I think the biggest moral consensus amongst voters is for taxes levied on the beneficiaries from the public work or institutions funded.

The public cares not if a tax has absolutely zero distortion when it is levied on the masses to benefit the few.

This more resembles income, profit, or use taxes.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#85

Post by s1artibartfast »

wat10000 wrote: post #81
s1artibartfast wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.

I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.

I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion.

I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost.

Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who benefits and how much.

For example, a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is distortionary but appropriate in my view.

Paying for the cost of wear and tear is a "distortion", because it changes the amount consumed. I argue that the cost of maintaining and building roads should factor into road consumption decisions!

Another example, If people want to live in remote fire-prone areas, they should pay more taxes to account for the higher state costs of infrastructure and safety, not fewer taxes because the land is cheaper than urban zones. The people driving the cost would be disconnected from the burden, and incentivized to drive them higher!

Distortion is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#86

Post by estearum »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #85
wat10000 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.

I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who bene…

I'd argue this is a baseline error. The efficient baseline policy for roads is to have a consumption tax attached. It is therefore deviations from this efficient baseline that are distortionary, which is actually the absence of a consumption tax.

Distortion isn't just "produces different behavior," because if it were, then any tax change in any direction to anything would be distortionary. Distortion is when a tax produces less-efficient behavior. For goods like roads, the inefficient-behavior state is the one created by not having consumption taxes.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#87

Post by ekelsen »

estearum wrote: post #83
ekelsen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So show us the prompt

As stated, it's work product. Not a toy "adversarial prompt," so I won't be posting it here. And as stated, even Pangram's own marketing material claims at least a 0.4% false negative rate on their own contrived corpus. A one in 250 event is hardly even rare. You seem quite defensive about Pangram, and it shows up in a few of your comments. Is there a reason for that? If it's extending to outright denial of Pangram's…

What I said is that every time Pangram has said 100% AI, it is 100% something I don't want to read. I don't particularly care if it was written by humans or LLMs.

Every time I've asked for evidence from someone who claims something like you do there always seems to be a reason it can't be posted. So it makes one suspicious.

Is there no way you can modify your prompt to be shareable?

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#88

Post by estearum »

ekelsen wrote: post #87
estearum wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated, it's work product. Not a toy "adversarial prompt," so I won't be posting it here. And as stated, even Pangram's own marketing material claims at least a 0.4% false negative rate on their own contrived corpus. A one in 250 event is hardly even rare. You seem quite defensive about Pangram, and it shows up in a few of your comments. Is there a reason for that? If it's extending to outright denial of Pangram's…

What I said is that every time Pangram has said 100% AI, it is 100% something I don't want to read. I don't particularly care if it was written by humans or LLMs. Every time I've asked for evidence from someone who claims something like you do there always seems to be a reason it can't be posted. So it makes one suspicious. Is there no way you can modify your prompt to be shareable?

> I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text.

That's another claim you made, which is quite silly. You've never found something that Pangram marks as 0% human and which you deem to be 100% human? Huge gulf.

And no, not really. It's copy from fundraising materials. Removing the identifiable portions of it would remove virtually everything, which is perhaps why Pangram didn't flag it?

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#89

Post by s1artibartfast »

estearum wrote: post #86
s1artibartfast wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who bene…

I'd argue this is a baseline error. The efficient baseline policy for roads is to have a consumption tax attached. It is therefore deviations from this efficient baseline that are distortionary, which is actually the absence of a consumption tax. Distortion isn't just "produces different behavior," because if it were, then any tax change in any direction to anything would be distortionary. Distortion is when a tax pr…

If you are arguing the efficient baseline for roads is a use tax, then we agree!

The un-priced state of government infrastructure and service use is a market failure, but this is exactly what modern georgism and LVT calls for in its myopic focus on land and natural resources!

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#90

Post by estearum »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #89
estearum wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue this is a baseline error. The efficient baseline policy for roads is to have a consumption tax attached. It is therefore deviations from this efficient baseline that are distortionary, which is actually the absence of a consumption tax. Distortion isn't just "produces different behavior," because if it were, then any tax change in any direction to anything would be distortionary. Distortion is when a tax pr…

If you are arguing the efficient baseline for roads is a use tax, then we agree! The un-priced state of government infrastructure and service use is a market failure, but this is exactly what modern georgism and LVT calls for in its myopic focus on land and natural resources!

Yes, we do agree on that.

Georgism actually does not argue against Pigouvian taxes or use taxes per se. His view is more that you should expect to get less of whatever you tax. In this case, our shared view is that you actually want to tax road usage because you want less of it. I doubt George thought that people should use roads less, so I presume he wouldn't have been fond of the idea of taxing their use.

And it's worth noting the vast majority of LVTers or Georgists are not "single-taxers." They typically would believe that no tax scheme in lieu of a high LVT will produce desirable results, but not necessarily that any additional taxes on top of an LVT are necessarily bad.

Post reply on HN