kshri24

> You actually can, it's called securities lending.

You cannot do that with private companies. It is only restricted to public securities. And even these are not owner/investor stocks (which are locked for a certain period after company goes public via IPO). These are typically fresh stocks issued before company goes public.

> This is not a universal truth.

What is the evidence for it working otherwise? Every Country that has tried Wealth Tax has rolled it back.

> A lesser gain is not a loss.

It is not a capital gains tax (which already exists). Wealth tax is a tax on unrealized gains. It definitely leads to erosion of stock value.

> 1) Why not. 2) Sounds like someone needs an income (which is already taxed and would have solved much of the tax avoidance).

You have just encountered a classic Catch-22 here. Without income, you cannot pay tax. Without paying tax, you have no revenue and hence no income.

They are assets from personal perspective yes. But they are in the form of equity in company's balance sheet in which it is invested. Which is why it is on the liability side of the equation (A = L + E).

If you impose a wealth tax on this, which side are you imposing it on? Company or individual investor in the company? You cannot impose a tax on what is technically a liability on the company's books. So you would have to impose on the individual investor. Lets try with an example: assume the wealth tax is 10%. Lets also assume I hold 5 million common stock, pre-seed, in a startup I founded (45% equity). How would the stock be valued? It should be zero. So I pay zero wealth tax. Then I get an investor onboard, who invests say $1 million at 10%, valuing the company at $10 million. Lets assume, because of this capital infusion, my equity gets diluted to 40%. That means I am on paper worth $4 million. I immediately owe 10% of it or $400,000 to tax authorities. Without having made a single cent in revenue. My co-founder would also owe $400,000. We have no money of our own except to use the investment money to pay the taxes. That is $400,000 + $400,000 = $800,000. We are left with only $200,000 in the bank. Before we even started the company.

You might say 10% is too much. Lets reduce the wealth tax to say 1%. Or even 0.1%. Then the entire idea becomes meaningless. Might as well just charge extra corporate tax.

It is not the same thing. Property tax can easily be offset by rental income, unless you are staying in it ofcourse. You cannot rent stocks.

> And I don't have the option to sell partial shares of it

Sure. But you can always rent it out and move to a smaller rental. And it is a good thing you cannot sell partial shares of it. You shouldn't. Imagine selling partial shares/stocks every time you have to pay tax on stocks. You will end up with nothing in a few years.

Taxed assets are always going to be way lesser than any hypothetical tax on stocks. Lets assume investment is in housing. Rent collected can easily be used to offset property tax on the asset. Now you cannot collect rent on stocks the way you can collect rent on assets like a residential/commercial property. So the only way to pay tax on stock value (which is assessed by a valuer at that particular point in time) is by either paying it out of personal pocket, taking a loan or selling the stock. None of those options are feasible.

> Are you saying the bank interest would be higher than other investments minus tax?

It absolutely will. When you tax stocks, you are eroding its value. Why would anyone want to continue to keep their wealth in stocks when they could just cash out and not lose any of that value?

> Who said that? You've defined your own narrow version of capital controls to then argue against. States could just ban moving capital out of the country. Countries can just pass laws! They don't need to do whatever makes rich people happy.

If capital cannot be taken out of country then it can be put in assets mate. I have explained that scenario already.

> If a few dudes control most productive forces, that is inherently antidemocratic. No amount of trying to pay off the public with some elaborate scheme that doesn't remove their control will fix that.

Then have more dudes controlling most productive forces. You have anti-monopoly and antitrust laws for that exact reason.

> If the only reason somebody opens a company is greed, then maybe that company would be a net-negative for society anyways?

It is not greed. Money is a by-product of success and follows success wherever it goes. You cannot dissociate the two.

> Of course UBI is an allowance. You can't just say it isn't without making an argument

It really isn't. It is the same argument as utilities. You individually haven't paid the full amount for construction of road network, bridges, electric grid yet you don't consider it an "allowance" do you? You believe you have contributed your fair share. Yet you still enjoy these utilities wherever you are and for life by only paying for how much you use it. UBI is the exact same thing. Instead of giving you in the form of utilities, you are getting money which you will reinvest back into the economy by choosing what and from whom to buy. Both are assets being dispersed by the Government.

UBI can be implemented in a different way. Tax a portion of the profits earned and reserve it specifically for UBI. It is not an allowance either. It is what will keep economy afloat. Else if no one can buy the products/services the rich sell, then their stocks will be worth nothing.

> We cannot claim to live in a democracy while Elon Musk gets to decide whether our allies can use communications or close down entire branches of government.

This can be fixed with laws around lobbying.

> capital controls for the more near-term issue

Capital controls won't solve much because it is a one time exit tax that stakeholders have to pay to move out of the jurisdiction taxing stocks. Those who cannot move will shutdown their companies and invest those proceeds into assets, typically immovable (like land/houses etc), which will drive housing prices up. It has cascading effects that affect the economy in a different way.

This causes displacement of those who cannot afford housing, which will incentivize the rich outside the jurisdiction to buy up assets and then that causes a change in voting structures. The rich can then vote their candidate who will reverse capital controls. Or maybe they won't and keep it that way so they have their own gated society so to speak with no entry for those who cannot afford to be there. You can already see it happening in few places in the World where such controls exist.

> You dont need incentives for the rich. You can just pass laws limiting their options.

You are missing the point. The incentives are for everyone who want to give it a shot at trying to take their idea, implement a vision and then execute on it. Does not mean they will succeed. The tiny percentage who do succeed end up becoming rich. See the number of startups that succeed vs those that failed. You are not disincentivizing the rich by imposing wealth tax. You are disincentivizing the average Joe who wants a shot at making it.

It is concerning for the simple reason that you have a stake in a company based on a future bet that the company will succeed. There is no guarantee for success. It's because owner has a stake will he/she work towards building a vision for his/her idea that is put into execution. Asset is not tied to any idea whatsoever nor is there any vision to strive towards. Infact the investment itself exchanges stock for introduction of asset (capital infusion). So money is being put into the company by owners or investors in exchange for stake. Beneficiaries of this capital investment will be employees first typically. Only once the company takes off and finds success can owners/investors cash in on their investment that too if they sell their stock. So in effect the rich have their money locked-in.

If you tax stocks, the rich will have no incentive to keep their money locked-in. They will encash and exit to a jurisdiction that allows them to invest their proceeds into stocks again. Lets assume a hypothetical scenario where all jurisdictions impose a tax on stocks. Then they'll retire by investing in assets or heck just keep it in their banks.

What you are asking for won't work in a capitalist society (which is pretty much every society on Earth). The only way out is UBI.

Stocks are still owned by people who have a stake in the company. They are not owned by the company.

Edit: Again, stocks are not financial Assets.

Wealth tax is not on Assets. It's on Stocks. The top pay the same tax on their personal income. Wealth tax is different. It taxes Ownership of Stocks not Assets.

You are not selling Assets but Stocks. Stocks come under Equity not Assets.

There is no such honor code and stop spreading this BS propaganda. Izzat is not even an Indian word used in any Indian language. It is Arabic which got mixed in with Persian which in turn got mixed in with Urdu.

> It is obviously smart statecraft.

I don't recall Western pundits saying it is smart statecraft when China erected the Great Firewall.

> Preventing your government services from being dependent on a geopolitical foe is not protectionism.

That is exactly protectionism.

It is exactly that. US AI companies cannot compete with Chinese models because they are obviously way cheaper. That's the only reason why this is being done. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knew this was coming. This is my comment from 17 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49956717

> Protectionism is an economic policy where a government tries to protect domestic businesses and industries from foreign competition

This is exactly that.

I thought it is a US led Western order that wanted free market access and that protectionism was decried as part of Communist/Socialist ideology. Clearly that order has collapsed with all the Western hypocrisy that comes with it.

As expected. This will force all companies downstream to also adhere to the order irrespective of whether the company is situated within US or not. Protectionism at its finest.

You can take your sarcasm and shove it where Sun does not shine.

You losers had 200+ years to fix India however you wanted, since you ruled over it. Instead turned it into a shithole before leaving. Last thing we Indians want is to take your worthless, unasked for advice. Piss off.

Yeah well OpenAI did destroy the non-profit part at the very least.

You are looking at safety from the point of an informed technologist. You are the minority here. They are targeting the general public and law makers into making them believe safety is something that LLMs can be aligned to. The reason behind it is to create an environment for future regulations that these "winners" will draft and lobby US Government to turn it into law.

If it requires creating a pathogen or a bio-weapon to scare the masses into demanding regulation, be rest assured that such a pathogen/bio-weapon will be created. Anything to safeguard shareholder interests. Even if it means a few million dying.

Yeah but I am not talking about US imports. I am talking about regulation virality. It is actually illegal for US laws/requirements to make its way into companies headquartered in other Countries but it has and is continuing to happen.

Even if I go by your calculation of US imports being 3.4% of global GDP, it still affects the remaining 96.6% which are forced to adhere to those viral regulations purely because they are interacting with the unit that also exports to US (even if those exports form a tiny % of their overall exports). For example, I might only sell to Indian companies as an Indian. But if I want to sell to an Indian company that exports to US, I would be required to get SOC Type-2 certified and maybe even HIPAA certified if I am delivering software that is going to be bought by the exporting Indian company. Even if there is no direct utilization of that software in their US specific exports. Remember that the regulation is not targeting pipeline of product development (from raw materials to final production). It is targeting the company as a whole! SOC Type-2/HIPAA are regulations at the Company level. This should be illegal and challenged in some International Court but which country is willing to take on US? For established companies it is a tiny price to pay to be compliant. For startups, it is make or break.

> Viral effects can be countered by local laws, and local sentiment; sentiment is pretty US-hostile these days, and also pretty AI-hostile.

How do you counter it with local laws? Lets assume local laws prohibit viral rules/regulations of foreign nations from overriding local laws. That will make the entire Country isolated from competition. US companies won't have any problems finding vendors from other Countries. It also has second-order effects of other Countries refusing to do business with your Country because they have to uphold the virality of their certifications. This is an indirect sanctions regime if you think about it. You are basically forced into this system against your will, without you ever voting for it, purely because you are part of this global inter-connected system. It will only work if ALL countries of the World decide to not adhere to it.

> Indeed. I strongly suspect this is already underway, though the ships of state are famously slow to turn. After all, Trump was one misjudgement away from starting a war with the rest of NATO earlier this year, and I don't think the leadership of all other nations have forgotten this (hard to forget when he keeps posting memes that put the US flag over 4 other countries' territory)… though they also understand his personality and will make moves congruent with manipulating him in the meantime.

Yes this is actually the only practical way to create leverage. When USD loses its shine, it makes it harder for US to import, which can be used as a tool to force US to rescind such ridiculous laws. USD is so strong right now that US can import everything for cheap. That has to flip. That can only happen if Countries create alternate settlement mechanisms and USD loses its status as global reserve currency. That will cause downward pressure on the USD and with USD weakening, it will cause their imports to become really expensive. Then they will be forced to come to negotiating table (much like Plaza Accord) loosen some of the insane regulations that they have put in place in exchange for Countries devaluing their currencies so that imports become cheap again for US consumers/companies.

> The US is 25% of global GDP, and cannot support current AI market caps if they can't sell basically worldwide.

Oh they definitely can. Irrespective of whether you are living in US or not, you still have to get yourself various certifications (take for example SOC Type-2 or HIPAA depending on your business category) to even become vendors to US companies or the US Government. If the US Government decides that all companies MUST use "safe AI", no company can use any other model other than what is decided by US Government. And that has a viral effect on the entire supply chain.

If you don't want this scenario to happen, where you are held to ransom by US Government, all middle-powers have to de-risk and diversify away from US dollars as reserve currency. That is the only way you can bring in some balance of power and leverage. There is no other way.

You can pick any 4 you like from your list. Heck you can even vote with your money on which would be in the top 4 (depending on how many align with your ideology). I am just speculating it will be 4 because of how all other sectors have at least 3 or 4 well-entrenched players. It seems to be by design. My guess is that it is driven by structure of the Military-Industrial Complex. That has at least 3 or 4 vendors in each sector, so as to not over-rely on any one company and create a monopoly in that specific industry.

There is no established industry where something like "absence of regulation" exists. It is a hypothetical scenario because we don't even really know what that scenario looks like.

What we do have is not just regulation that acts as a moat, created by established players, to keep out smaller competitors, but also regulation cleverly crafted by peer established competitors who attack one or more aspects of their peer competitions business. Why do you think big companies find it difficult to compete with startups? Because they are not just bogged down by hierarchical management (which itself is a result of regulations) but also because they are spending resources fighting frivolous lawsuits, patents, and adhering to crazy regulations created and lobbied by competitors. Companies are consistently in a fight or collapse mode. Startups are insulted from all that until they have to go from survival mode to growth mode, which would mean they will have to start adhering to "regulations" and that would mean raising and infusing pointless capital just to hire people for useless positions or follow "procedures" so as to satisfy the regulator on paper, so that they can get the required certification needed by enterprise vendors to sell their product/service. With the eventual goal of either going public and becoming an established player (who will continue playing the regulatory game) or get absorbed by a bigger established player.

I wish someone could create simulations where there are absolutely no regulations and how the World would fare in such an environment.

Actually you are wrong. They are only waiting for them to get to the point where they can't push LLMs any further via training and then lobby Governments to introduce safety regulations that they'll adhere to, thereby using safety itself as a moat to block competition (including open weights from other countries, notably China). That's exactly why they are using China as the bogeyman and you keep hearing hysteria about AI labs not pursuing "safety". Safety is going to be the moat that will lock AI into these Big 4 AI labs.

> Over several months, I interviewed 20 religious and philosophical thinkers — Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, evangelical, Ubuntu and others — who have been involved in Anthropic’s efforts, and Mr. Olah himself.

Not enough representation of World religions and philosophies.

> India is growing fast, it’s just that under Modi it has grown so much less than everybody around them, so you can start asking questions - where does all that generated wealth flowing into.

Just wanted to add to this. Modi came to power in 2014 mate. He has been leading India for just 12 years. If you had come to India in 2013, you would have seen how bad India was back then. If you had visited all the countries and their cities you named, they were ALREADY developed in 2013. Heck they were ALREADY developed in 2000s. You are comparing a DEVELOPING India under Modi with cities/countries ALREADY developed in early 2000s.

> Have you been to China? Taiwan? Singapore? Thailand? Vietnam? Republic of Korea?

Indians are one group of people who frequently travel the World. Infact we are EVERYWHERE. To the point where Countries have to impose restrictions on our entry. We know how other countries have progressed and how much they have developed. We are not stupid. We don't need Europeans to tell us that. Especially AFTER Europeans controlling India for 200+ years and turning it into a shithole before being kicked out. It pisses Indians like me off big time when we see Europeans complain about India. You losers had 200+ years to turn India into an oasis if you really wanted. You had the power to do so. You did not. You instead robbed my country dry. So STFU with your stupid sermons.

I see. Had no idea. Thanks for the alternate links. More the merrier.

> Have you been to China? Taiwan? Singapore? Thailand? Vietnam? Republic of Korea?

These have had enough time to develop mate. All of them got investments way early because of aligning with the West. China literally was given special treatment (China detonated nuclear weapons in 90s and wasn't sanctioned by US. When India conducted reciprocal nuclear tests, we got sanctioned. Despite India being a democracy while China being a communist 1-party dictatorship). All of the countries you mentioned, except China, are vassals of the West.

Imagine funding and sleeping with brutal dictatorships like China, while simultaneously sanctioning India because the democracy chose to be non-aligned, while having the audacity to then lecture the country on why it hasn't developed yet.

> But if you go to the other places in Asia and see what they have accomplished, some after literally being bombed to the Stone Age by the Americans …

Like which part of Asia? Vietnam? Vietnam destroyed Americans.

As if India wasn't dried out by colonizing Europeans for 200+ years. The same "Crown Jewel of British Empire" turned into a "shithole" by the time we gained Independence. From 25% of World GDP down to 4% of World GDP by the time we kicked the Brits out. By all measures WE WERE taken to stone age by Europeans so that Europeans could build grand castles at our expense. Millions of Indians died fighting 2 World Wars that were not of our making but were Wars started and ended by the West. We suffered so you guys can build your empires after looting us, heck even stealing the Hindi word "loot" into your dictionaries. And after all that you come and tell us how to live. GTFO here.

> Bangkok is a bustling modern industrial clean and livable metropolis.

Again comparing a country that is a vassal of US with India that chose to be non-aligned.

All of the countries you mentioned have US bases and are heavily reliant on US. In exchange for this loss of independence, US threw some crumbs at them which they used for their development. None of them built their cities from scratch. It was all through foreign aid.

> I’ve overheard women talking to each other how one of them fell asleep in a cab at night, and the other one mentioned “OMG you are so lucky to live in Mumbai, you were safe” … like wtf place are you coming from. Turns out only in Mumbai women are safe in India…

More BS propaganda. Women in India are safe everywhere. The rape per capita in India is far, far, far less than developed countries like US. We literally have 715 million women in India. It wouldn't have been possible to have that many women if India was unsafe.

> You can _drink_ the tap water everywhere in Taipei. In Mumbai even the super mega ultra rich people need to buy filters for their water …

Sure. You can drink from tap water anywhere in Himalayas too. You can even drink directly from the springs. That means nothing at the end of the day. Developing cities have their own issues. Mumbai is not a developed city. Taipei is. Comparing two totally different cities on different stages of development is ridiculous.

Again, Taipei exists because of the grace of US. Without US, Taipei would be in the hands of communist China. All the development that these countries have experienced is purely because of US benevolence and funding.

> 40 years ago Seoul was a shit hole, today it is just as virtually unaffordable for the locals as Mumbai, but it’s a city that makes the US and most of Europe jealous. No mineral wealth, no hydrocarbons, literal war at their border, and the people still built that marvel.

Bruh. South Korea is like a State within India. It is tiny AF. Obviously it can grow quickly, especially when it has a big brother like US funding it in exchange for losing autonomy.

> but it’s a city that makes the US and most of Europe jealous

Don't be jealous. Your own politicians funded it with your tax payer dollars/euros. If they had invested in their own population you wouldn't have had to travel all the way to India to have a job. You would be working in US or EU.

> Great attitude dude, great attitude, slow clap.

I seriously mean it. Why stay in a Country that you find problematic? Indians who don't like India move to US purely because they like better lifestyle US provides. I have never seen anyone actively move to a Country that they hate.

Just replace x.com with nitter.cf

Keep lying to yourself.

> I assume you are sincere in holding these beliefs and not just a bot inflaming politics.

Yet you replied like a bot without giving any statistics to prove "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims took place in Gujarat. While I gave you stats to show that not only Muslims are thriving in Gujarat, their population has increased by 1.5 million more since 2002. Then I gave a contrasting example of what an ACTUAL ethnic cleansing looks like and you had the audacity to dismiss it as "whatboutism". Have some fucking shame.

> In that case the general reason you are being dismissed now is you are doing a classic [whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) - dismissing one wrong by pointing out another.

Huh? Claiming "ethnic cleansing", having literally no evidence to prove that and then when I give an analogy of what a real ethnic cleansing looks like resorting to saying it is "whataboutism" just reeks of malice.

> As someone who moved to India for personal reasons from Europe, this whole defending of Modi and his party policies seems so bizarre - there _are_ examples of countries in the region that got worse in the last 30 years (Pakistan) in the region, but there are soo many examples of others that got much much better. If you look what’s happening to all the other countries in Asia -

Please move back to Europe. I have been in India my entire life. I have personally seen how much India has progressed. We don't want foreigners coming to India with an agenda. Please pack your bags and leave.

> India seems to be falling behind so hard it’s not even funny. And all thanks to the great leader. It could have been worse - yes, but it could easily have been so so much better.

Exactly where is India falling behind? India is the fastest growing economy in the World. Either give numbers or STFU with your propaganda.

> And I usually go back to the “why nations fail” book that outlined the reasons of countries success and failure - it’s not rocket science - build and strengthen institutions and your country prospers, waken institutions for personal gain to you and your allies - country goes to the dumpster eventually.

With this ridiculous attitude we do not need people like you here. Please leave.

> The US are going a similar road btw, and it would be a very interesting example to point to eventually for the next editions of that book.

Go back to Europe then.