czzr
That's the playbook, right - keep interest/investment flowing until you can figure out the actual commercial value/model. Until then, do whatever you need to keep the hype as high as possible and maximise your runway.
Of course, general improvements may be sufficient to continue to drive math improvements even without specific attention - we’ll see.
It’s a pity he can’t be as measured and scientific in his communication as the current US administration, but we can’t all aspire to that level of technocratic excellence.
Well done America.
But ok - yes, sure, in real life it’s a mix and the mix is worth debating. Note also that consumption taxes often have exemptions/reductions to offset the most severe regressive effects.
Also, why do you think the impact of past changes on a tiny group of humans living as hunter gatherers is of any relevance to 8 billion people living in the modern world (including, for example, in massive coastal cities?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
For those who don't follow the link, here's an extract from the article explaining the core situation:
Imagine a car that costs $30,000 to produce before tax. Now compare four scenarios:
1) BMW sells the car in Germany (domestic sale): Germany’s VAT (let’s say 20% for simplicity) is added on the final sale. The German consumer pays 20% VAT, i.e., an extra $6,000, for a total price of $36,000. BMW forwards that $6,000 to the German government as VAT.
2) BMW exports the car to the U.S.: Since the car is exported, BMW does not charge German VAT. Any VAT BMW paid on parts or inputs is refunded by the German tax authority. The U.S. buyer pays the $30,000 price, and since the U.S. has no federal VAT, there’s no equivalent federal tax on that sale. (A state sales tax might apply at the point of sale, but we’ll come back to that.) The key point: the German government collects no VAT on an item consumed in the U.S.. This makes complete sense because that car’s being enjoyed by an American buyer, not a German resident.
3) GM sells the car in the U.S. (domestic sale): The U.S. has no VAT, so the American consumer pays $30,000 (ignoring any state sales tax). No federal consumption tax is collected. (In states with a sales tax, the consumer might pay, say, 7% extra to the state government, but again, the federal treatment is no tax.)
4) GM exports the car to Germany: When the car arrives in Germany, it faces the same 20% VAT as any car sold in Germany. So a German customer buying the American-made car pays $30,000 + $6,000 VAT = $36,000. That $6,000 goes to the German government. From GM’s perspective, it doesn’t owe U.S. tax on that export sale (since the U.S. doesn’t tax exports of goods), but its product will bear German VAT when consumed in Germany.
What outcome do we have here? In Germany, both the BMW and the GM car cost the same $36,000 after tax, and the German government collects VAT on both. In the U.S., both cars cost $30,000 before any state sales taxes, and the U.S. government collects no federal consumption tax on either. Each country taxes consumption within its borders—no matter where the product came from—and does not tax consumption outside its borders. This is precisely the goal of destination-based taxation: neutrality. Consumers in each country face the same tax on a given product, whether it’s domestically produced or imported. And neither country’s producers carry their home consumption tax as a “ball and chain” when they go compete in foreign markets.
Reducing that to free markets = good, governments = bad (or vice versa) is a truly terrible way to think about effective society design.
Still, the goal should be to treat everyone better, not make things equal by treating everyone like shit.
And the current finite number is nowhere close to causing a crisis for the US (Japan had two and a half times GDP in debt and did not collapse into hyperinflation or some other catastrophic fate, for example).
I’m not sure how to explain this to you, really - you’re fundamentally stuck, I think, on the idea that the gov is like a business or a household, and needs to budget the same way. It really doesn’t.
Maybe think of it this way, to start to get your head around it: current debt is just over 100% of GDP - so in some sense the US has borrowed about a years worth of production. 100% sounds scary, but does 12 months sound so scary? Would you consider yourself in catastrophic debt if you owed a year of your salary?
Personally I wish my mortgage was only a year of my salary!
I can’t even begin to tell you how far the US is from hyperinflation or any major debt issues - the only real risk the US faces is internal stupidity (I don’t only mean the current situation, idiocies like the ongoing debt ceiling nonsense apply too).
Look, prudence is not a bad thing, and it’s worthwhile to have sensible management. But talk of hyperinflation is either severe mis-calibration of risks, deep misunderstanding of how economies work, or intentional propaganda.
Now, the problem is - what to do about how badly informed you and millions of Americans are. That you cheer for the destruction of valuable and painfully built state capacity for completely spurious reasons. It’s almost funny, except for all the innocent people who get hurt along the way.
But the world needs some way to cooperate, especially in matters of public health which do not care about national borders. Casually throwing that away for short term political theatre is so painfully stupid.
Also, no one kowtows to the WHO and no one gives up national sovereignty over their own health decisions. What led you to believe this?
Interestingly, it does not say that the warming trend is not happening, rather they argue that the evidence is insufficient to say for sure if the warming is caused by human-driven causes or natural ones (e.g. volcanic activity or solar changes). They mention the heat island effect as one of the issues that may complicate the attribution of the contribution of different factors to the warming trend.
To quote from the paper:
“To summarize, by varying ST and/or TSI choice and/or the attribution approach used, it is possible to conclude anything from the long-term warming being "mostly natural" to "mostly anthropogenic" or anything in between. While each of us has our own scientific opinions on which of these choices are most realistic, we are concerned by the wide range of scientifically plausible, yet mutually contradictory, conclusions that can still be drawn from the data.”