cherrycherry98

Prioritizing wealth creation is probably beneficial to most people. As Adam Smith observed:

"It deserves to be remarked, perhaps, that it is in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of the people, seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is, in reality, the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the society; the stationary is dull; the declining melancholy."

Not that it should come at the expense of exploitation, and Smith would likely agree. He was critical of rent seekers and slavery and was very much interested in the well being of common people.

His observation, I believe, it also applicable at a smaller scale when looking at companies. Growing companies are great to work for with lots of excitement, perks, and new opportunities, even for average or mediocre employees. Stagnant companies are difficult and melancholy, not much advancement, raises are small or non existent. Declining ones are miserable as everyone is fighting for survival.

It's not freedom of speech if someone is claiming to be someone they aren't (false representation) or claiming benefits that don't exist (false advertising) for financial gain. This is fraud and is illegal. There's not much of a freedom of speech argument around it and even pro speech people wouldn't come to the defense of someone lying about their product.

I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous.

"Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?"

Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it.

“I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”

Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders.

I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.

I was shocked to learn that this is a thing but it does happen. Organized crime groups steal art that they can use to negotiate lighter sentences.

It is believed that the Mafia stole Rembrandt's "Storm in the Sea of Galilee", among other works from the Gardner Museum for this reason. The documentary series "This Is a Robbery" goes into this heist and is a good watch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_a_Robbery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Mus...

After their Hogwarts Legacy review where they gave the game 1/10 and talked more about the controversy around Rowling than the game they have no credibility to me.

Agreed, we need larger denomination notes to keep cash usable. Despite decades of inflation the largest notes printed are $100 and it has been that way since 1969. Even $500 note doesn't get us back to buying power parity (it's about $800 btw).

There's also real yield to account for. If rates are 0% and inflation is 2%, real yield is -2%. If rates are 5% but inflation is 7%, real yield is still -2%. Buying power is being lost even if the numbers in your account are going up.

Essays produced for school aren't of much value for someone else to read. The value is to the writer who gets to practice synthesizing ideas and communicating them into words. There's still value to be had in learning how to communicate effectively in writing.

Companies now have "inclusive language" policies. There are dashboards that track team compliance and people that cheer this stuff on.

Master branch gets renamed to main meanwhile one can freely talk about how they used their MasterCard to buy a new Jazzmaster guitar that they keep in their master bedroom with a Master lock on it and they're almost done with the master of their new album showing off their mastery of musical and production that they learned taking lessons on MasterClass. Did I mention there's a cover of Master of Puppets?

Think this sounds crazy? Don't read this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1675987

I had no idea they had gotten so big. Roughly 200k employees puts them on par with the size of Bank of America.

I've been vaxxed and boosted but have accepted that we won't really know the true efficacy of any of the stuff that went on during the pandemic for decades. Any dissent from the official line was treated as heresy. Can't do any real science in that kind of environment.

Economics is how we align goals. When using clean energy is better and cheaper than fossil fuels then people don't need to be coerced into adopting it. It's rapidly reaching that state and already is there for many.

The insistence that climate solutions involve self sacrifice I believe is a misguided one. I view the transformation to a low carbon future as happening primarily through the existence of natural economic incentives to do so.

People aren't buying electric cars and installing solar panels on their homes out of self sacrifice. Electric vehicles have many desirable features like being very performant, lower maintenance, able to be used as a home battery backup system, refuel/recharge at home, and are cost effective in a high gasoline price world. One of the major selling points of solar panels is the return on investment through lower electricity bills. The fact that both are considered green and makes some feel good that they are helping the planet is merely extra.

In general, sacrifice too often considered the path to virtue. I increasingly believe this to be mistaken. If we want the masses to adopt green technology it must materially improve their lives (superior in features and/or lower in cost). The benefits of being green for climate's sake I fear are too intangible be a significant driving factor in decision making.

This seems to assume that the government is benevolent, whereas private actors are not. I have come to view government programs with the perspective that they are intended primarily to benefit the politicians efforts to become reelected. They can claim to be saving the world, but with other people's money. Some good may come of these efforts but I don't view them as inherently virtuous. You argue that private actors let personal politics dictate how they direct their funds, if the alternative is allowing politicians to do so, I don't see how that is much better.

I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.

I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.

Apologies if I came across in any way patronizing, my intent was to add some details for others in the context of Smith's views on the role of the state, which I felt were lacking in the wider thread in general. Your original comment sparked those thoughts for me, which is why I replied there. My comment was not intended for you personally so much as for the wider audience.

If my etiquette was at all inappropriate I apologize.

Exactly, this paternalism over (mis)information needs to stop. What kind of free society can we have if dissent is not tolerated? Some of that dissent will be nonsense but some of it will have some truth to it.

It all reminds me of Paul Graham's What You Can't Say essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true."

Smith very much supported the existence of the state for several purposes. If I recall correctly they are things pretty non controversial like defense, infrastructure, property rights, regulations that enable markets to operate effectively (providing necessary transparency so that people can make informed choices, protections against monopolies and rent seeking behavior). He correctly identifies that while some regulations are necessary, some will seek to use them to protect their own position, ie regulatory capture.

Overall, his message is decidedly pro freedom and against top down economic planning and intervention. People are naturally self interested, and enabling them to voluntarily trade with others as they see fit enhances the life of each partner of the trade. Scale that up and society advances itself with an centralized arbiter to guide it.

As for taxes, the reason he felt that the rich should pay more is because they derive the most benefit from the existence of the state.

Banks only keep track of transactions they are involved in. Cash transactions are peer to peer, private, and anonymous.

The US government has been effectively phasing out cash through inflation since 1969, as they haven't issued any notes larger than $100 since then. You need roughly 780 2022 dollars to equal 100 1969 dollars. Even a $500 note does not get us back to parity on buying power.

Unless it comes with safeguards regarding anonymity and protection from seizure, I feel that this will give the government too much power and surveillance. What will prevent the government from holding individuals accountable for making transactions deemed immoral or dangerous? It seems all you have to do is characterize a movement as terrorism and you can seize assets at will.

A world with physical currency has a builtin "privacy mode" in that you can conduct business just using notes and keep it in notes.

The US stopped printing notes larger than $100 in 1969. That $100 note in 1969 had the buying power of roughly $780 today due to inflation. I think it's well past due that the government print larger notes, allowing more economic freedom, but I understand why they don't. Even a $500 note doesn't bring us back to cash buying power parity with 1969.

It's unclear to me why this is bad. The expat is not the cause of those people's poverty. The relationship between paid servants and employee should be mutually beneficial, as each gets what they desire, money on one hand, and convenience or more free time on the other.

It's not like wealthy people in developed countries don't have servants who are comparatively poor. Multiples of those servants salaries are spent on frivolous amusements. What's the better alternative? That they not spend money on staff and instead hoard it, depriving others of job opportunities? Hand out bags of money for no reason?

Business has purpose too. It's providing a good or service that someone is voluntarily engaging in because they derive some benefit out of it. That's exciting to be part of. If the business creates more value for people than it spends on creating that, it profits, and incentivizes the business to keep going. It's a win-win in that each party gets something they want, the good/service or money. A business that is losing money is either not creating something that society values, or is doing it at too high a cost and is being wasteful of resources. This is a signal that they should change strategy to become profitable (create a better product, or do it cheaper) or close down and allow those resources to be allocated elsewhere.

Yes, this is an idealized view and there are business that profit from shady or fraudulent practices or rent seeking behavior. Over time, businesses that treat customers or workers unfairly will fail as fewer and fewer will want to do business with them or work for them, assuming the existence of competition or the possibility of new competition which has yet to be created. By all means, if a company you join is doing something unethical you should follow your conscience and consider leaving.

Maybe I'm lucky to have never been part of a team that focuses solely on profit for profit's sake. Profit should be the reward for having a well run business. We always focused on creating products that were helpful to customers, controlling costs, and reducing risk. Profit naturally follows from that.

As others have stated, big companies can be slow moving and bureaucratic as well but even at that level it might be an improvement over government. It also varies a lot based on the company and the team.

I stated that it was rooted in enlightenment thinking, to be more specific it is an amalgamation of classical liberal ideas supporting individual liberty and limited government. Ideas espoused by philosophers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and even Lao-Tzu. These are ideas worth understanding.

I gave no defense of it other than to imply that should not be dismissed as total manipulation by rich people. I agree with your assessment that we best avoid utopian ideals and the laisse-faire and anarchist libertarians take things way too far. You clearly have an issue with some contemporary brand of libertarians, and I think a lot of that is valid.

> You're coming across as lacking in knowledge, experience, and a leg to stand on and going for a cheap shot.

I think this was unwarranted and I don't appreciate it.

Not legally, and with a large enough balance not practically either.

I think it's disingenuous to call libertarianism fabricated, especially by people like the Kochs. This implies that those supporting its views are either manipulators or being ignorant of manipulation. It's a range of ideas rooted in enlightenment thinking that goes back hundreds of years, some of which are more extreme than others.

I find this kind of sentiment across many political groups where each seems to think they are the enlightened ones trying to save humanity and others are just in it to manipulate others for personal gain. This is conspiracy theory thinking. We should treat arguments in good faith in that those arguing for them really do think they have merit and are the best for most people, as we work towards discovering where we might have incorrect assumptions or just plain different ideas on what is "best" and what is fair.

I agree with you, taxation does nothing but enable the government to work on projects it deems important in the name of helping the public. It's inefficient and obviously open to corruption.

If we really think that it is unjust for money to be concentrated in the hands of the rich and should go to the public instead of their heirs or private interests, there should be an option of zeroing out one's bank account. That is, literally destroying money (not to be confused with wealth). This should have roughly the same effect as dividing up one's fortune and distributing it evenly to all holders of that currency.

Doesn't sound weird at all. They all share a collectivist ideology, which requires some degree of authoritarianism to operate. It's the elevation of the state or the collective over the individual and they differ only in their degree and implementation.

Hayek's dedication in The Road to Serfdom is to "socialists of all parties". He does this purposely to demonstrate that centralized control comes in many forms, no matter what it may be called.

Thanks for this explanation. There should be incentive for providing excess capacity but there are issues with the approach being taken.

If I'm not mistaken, customers have little idea that a price surge is in effect and what the rate is until they get billed. It's not like going to a gas station, seeing a price, and being able to opt in to the transaction, seek alternatives, or plan to self ration your consumption, as you're prepaying for the energy. The way the Texas model works it seems to assume that customers have a financial buffer that they're able to tap into to pay the higher rates. Everyone should plan for such a buffer but for those that don't have one it places hardship on them. It's also a risk for the provider that they won't get paid their windfall. You can't send huge surprise bills and expect people to pay them.

A sensible approach is to charge a bit extra under normal conditions to build a communal buffer that is used to pay for emergency power production. As long as there's good governance, this derisks the system. Another alternative might be energy bill insurance, if such a thing exists. It's easier to plan for a fixed monthly premium than a surprise payment in an emergency.

I'm in favor of removing the race question from the census. It proliferates collectivist thinking (my people/kin vs others, based on bloodlines or appearance) over individualism. It is also used as a justification for implementing discriminatory policies, ironically in the name of fighting discrimination.

I agree with you except for your thoughts regarding paying to educate doctors. Indeed we do benefit from people becoming doctors and they are well paid, have prestige, and are generally one of the most well respected professions. This should be plenty to incentivize one to pursue medicine. You will be paying them when you receive care, exchanging money for their service, directly via billing or indirectly via insurance.

They may ask for pay stubs.