barchar

Actually, normal people can do the borrowing thing. It's not really as necessary since you have normal employment income but you can do it and it can work. If you continually add more principle to your pile-o-stock than your monthly spending the growth will outpace your interest and you won't accumulate an unbounded amount of leverage.

At least if your broker offers decent margin rates or you sell boxes.

Well, also, your 401k and IRAs are probably superior to this strategy and can't be used as collateral as they're protected in bankruptcy. So it's not worth it until you fill those up.

Even folks who are just saving for retirement benefit, since they need not take any income on top of their normal employment income. They may be in a lower bracket when they sell.

Also the reality is that its somewhat rare for retirees to spend down their entire portfolios.

At any given point in time for an individual yes, but your cap gains rate can vary substantially over time. Also trusts are taxed fairly punitively.

So it's still better for everyone since only those who need or want the income have to take it.

The other tax-free way to benefit is to sell while your in the (fairly generous) 0% capital gains bracket

Actually no, they have the same benefits as a dividend except they don't create a forced tax liability.

Stock grants can actually include dividends.

Even if you don't sell or borrow against it you benefit because you don't have that tax liability, and the money you woulda paid in taxes can continue to be invested.

No, most dividends are "qualified" and taxed at the long term capital gains rate, assuming you've held the underlying for a decent amount of time.

Still, they're taxed, whereas buybacks allow the shareholders to control exactly when they take income.

Also buybacks will tend to select for frequently traded shares with high cost basis, further reducing total taxes and selecting for longer term shareholders. They really are just better than dividends in every way.

Dividends actually directly lower the stock price. Keep an eye on your portfolio when your holdings go ex-div -- the price falls because it no longer includes that cashflow.

And, mesh shading in particular is basically "what if we just deleted all that vertex specification crap and made you write a compute shader"

Note that it's not always better. The task shaders are quite hardware specific and it makes sense to ship defaults inside the driver.

No, it is overly complex for modern hardware (unless you use shader objects). Vulkan forces you to statically specify a ton of state that's actually dynamic on modern GPUs. You could cut things down a ton with a new API. Ofc you'd have to require a certain level of hardware support, but imo that will become natural going forward.

Actually, it would be kinda neat to see an API that's fully designed assuming a coherent, cached, shared memory space between device and host. Metal I guess is closest.

You could force companies to provide standing orders to sell unlimited shares at a price selected when they go public, and one they're unlikely to go below.

This would happily also eliminate price speculation entirely. The price would just be whatever the price is and most returns would come from dividends. Would require a bunch of tax and regulatory changes

The money actually has to be spent on real goods for which supply is inelastic for this to happen. If it's instead saved or used to pay taxes it won't cause any inflation.

I suppose the increased savings means there more potential for the private sector to cause inflation if everyone decides to dissave at once, but that's sorta a last resort.

It's usually cheaper to die

In two years maybe you have a different insurance co though.

Otoh this is why we invented reinsurance

I mean if it's a strict 80/20 split the incentives are the same as a 0/100 split no?

High MPC is just a low savings %. Mostly relevant for governments and public policy rather than businesses. Still, if a business is a big enough part of the economy it means workforce expansion involving lower wage jobs may "cost less" than it appears; if Amazon builds a new warehouse the workers might spend some of their paycheck at Amazon.

Decreased inequality with the same level of consumption would mean higher velocity of money, and thus higher total tax liabilities b

The returns to real estate are only remotely competitive _after_ leverage. Unlevered returns are extremely pathetic.

Also, there's leverage baked into most stocks. Corporations will lever up.

The stability comes from the wealth, not the house.

It hedges the cost of living _in that particular house_. However, housing costs are driven by the area's income, so your hedging against something that's likely to benefit you anyway.

Otoh renting hedges you against collapsing local incomes, because your rent would then go down, and you could move without being a forced seller.

As the owner builds equity it produces more and more drag on their finances, basically like a big cash pile.

The renter doesn't have to deal with this.

Well, there's also term rewriting macros, which are basically full blown compiler plugins (and will likely be removed because they're so hard to get right

> It goes without saying that interviewer successfully passed that interview process to get hired there

It does not.

Also, even at the places with the most consistent interviews difficulty is pretty all over the place (or questions are well-known).

Anyway, for me the answer to my interviewing woes was a propranolol prescription

It can also be a way to evade capital controls. You know you'll lose, but otoh you also know you'll probably not lose _everything_ and you buy in with RMB and cash out in HKD.

Well, if everyone is unemployed there won't be much of a market for these newly AI enabled companies to sell into. Also, in the extreme, you'd have deflation such that it's worth hiring again. This would be very painful.

More likely automatic stabilizers and additional stimulative spending would have to happen in order to fully utilize all the new productive capacity (or reduce it, as people start to work less). It's politically hard to sustain double digit unemployment, and ultimately the government can always spend enough or cut enough taxes to get everyone employed or get enough people to leave the labor force.

The coolest thing about nim is that it's macros participate in the type system and overload resolution and can work with both type checked and non type checked code

Well, you need to pay taxes on each step.

I'm sorta convinced we need to strongly discourage homeownership (of homes you live in) if we want to fix our housing issues. It just seems like once ~50% of the electorate are owner occupiers homes are treated like collectibles instead of normal productive assets.

You'd think they would be prime candidates to be LPs for new development

It's not a mark against you in that you can still get a medical, but it is a HUUUGE pain in the ass, and very, very expensive.

This has been tried, and actually does work reasonably well.

Well, not maximum wages as policy but policies where high productivity workers take a lower wage than they could individually bargain for in exchange for boosting wages of low productivity workers.

It provides a windfall to the most productive industries and a squeeze to the least productive ones.

It does really disfavor low productivity industries.

Actually, a core part of Sweden's original plan for social democracy was to have "solidaristic wage policy" where high wage workers would accept a lower wage in exchange for a higher one for low wage workers. The idea was you'd both squeeze low productivity businesses out _and_ provide a windfall to high productivity ones, who could expand faster.