heylook

What other species nurtures hordes of other brainless species to harvest for the antecedents of artificial pants?

What?

> it's hard to automate with AI

I disagree. At least it shouldn't be that hard for a company with Twitter's level of engineering and data science sophistication, and yes, I do realize that most of their best technical talent is long gone.

> But no matter how wealthy someone is, they can always point to the more-rich and say those people are the problem and should be taxed, not themselves.

This is obviously untrue. There isn't an infinite number of people wealthier than Gates or the Waltons or the Rothschilds. At some point there is no one further up the economic ladder in whatever location you're talking about.

> We should tax money that sits idle and provide tax benefits to money invested

>> You would force people to consume?

That's a complete misreading of the comment

Not to be a dick, but the above cited sources and you made assertions without anything pointing to anything to back them up. What reason do any of us have to put any stock in what you've written?

> Bill Gates rented a yacht for $5M/week. How is this not a clear waste?

Those $5M don't just get lit on fire. They transfer to some other set of people who can then decide what to do with it, and then onto some other set of people. Maybe the yacht's owner donates all proceeds to feed starving children.

What are some examples of such parameters?

Are you arguing that individual SSNs are the primary driving force of the economic development of the last 200 years?

Would you mind sharing your tips for setting this up? I've been considering doing something similar for a little while now but am unsure how to get started.

> Why wouldn't I just move to Monaco (or some other country that doesn't tax their income excessively) and keep that money?

They're welcome to. But they don't (or they haven't yet) because they see some benefit to staying versus the cost of leaving.

You can't actually kill the idea of a platform connecting travelers with decentralized supply. Sure, it's possible that the specific company Airbnb might not exist in the future, but there will always be people interested in exchanging spare housing capacity for money, and with the increasing ease of long-distance travel, I'd expect that population to only grow in the future. Maybe the dominant platform will be Airbnb, maybe it'll be HomeAway. Maybe it'll be Craigslist.

Hotels are actually really poorly positioned to fight Airbnb et al, since they face the huge capital costs of building/owning/maintaining giant buildings. Sure, they might win fights to change regulation or enforcement in some number of markets for some amount of time, but they'll never be able to spin supply up or down as nimbly as the marketplace platforms that don't own their own inventory.

Your point is valid, but I think it doesn't give enough credit to technological innovation and market forces. We've figured out how to do pretty amazing and ridiculous things with the right incentives in place in the past, and I'm not sure what about this problem would classify it as impossible.

To phrase it more glibly: "Necessity is the mother of invention."

> There's no zoning or technology for too much demand

Agree with your first sentence, but I quibble with this part. Demand for real estate is local, and defined as something resembling density: it's an intensity distributed over some area. That area is limited by development and infrastructure.

For example, you can alleviate the intensity of demand by widening the area in which those consumers can be satisfied. In other words, build more transportation that makes it more palatable to live further afield. The article even mentions it specifically: running the commuter shuttle to Gunnison more frequently eases the pain of living there and working in Crested Butte.