jimbilly22

same way it's always done. Pick and choose enforcement based on whims, political opponents or anyone otherwise whom they target.

mixed feelings because it's under 18, and therefore you dont feel that freedom of self is as important? Would you feel differently if this was for adults?

apart from freedom...just a little human right. no biggie.

I think that's fair, it just depends on what frame we are arguing in.

Because the motivation of a lot of the people arguing for "raising taxes on the rich" is to indeed leave the curve altogether.

Will small increases or decreases in tax rates fundamentally alter GDP? I think obviously not.

But those attempting to make a data-based argument for introducing MMT or a UBI with significantly nationalized elements of the economy (healthcare, energy, etc.) are laughable, when the evidence is so overwhelming that these ideas lead to adverse outcomes in the long-term.

I'm not attempting to straw-man, just to cut the meat to what people are actually arguing about (which isn't a couple percentage points in a tax rate). And it's important to flip it and be honest...and say, no, the data does indeed show without question that freer societies are way better -- and it's just that simple.

Here's one small example that I found illuminating and funny.

Bezos (a major political donor) lost a NASA contract for 10 billion to SpaceX. He freaked

So the US Senate, looking out for their buddy, simply added the 10 billion to their next budget directly for him:

https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...

Just one small example

I used to work in PE (private equity), very common there.

One daily DoorDash lunch order, put anything you want.

At the end of the day, from a macro perspective, it's going to come down to the "war for talent".

Businesses with the best talent, over time, win; those without, lose. As so, this is the most pertinent part of the article:

"As much as Mr. Gross wants people back at his ad agency, he is worried about retaining young talent at a time when churn is increasing."

At the end of the day workers do have the power here. If young people decide it matters businesses will adjust or die.

From a personal perspective, for me, it came down to money. I like living in NYC, but not enough to pay 3x for everything. Right now I pay $60 p/h for a personal boxing trainer. In NYC, I was paying $150. My kids want a backyard. Stuff like that.

I'm also a little worried about finance. The prestige there is lowering. They used to get the best students in the class. Now those students go to tech companies and they are getting the 4th, 5th, and 6th best students in the class. If they stick people in cubicles, eventually that's going to lower to 10th, and then we will have C students making trillion dollar bets with our financial system. Only half joking.

agreed, that is certainly the most noteworthy aspect. I can't say im surprised. Financial hegemony is critical for state apparatuses to maintain power. Frankly I'm more surprised it's taken them this long to begin the crusade against crypto currencies. I only expect it to ramp up further.

in the short term perhaps. In the long term, countries with less regulated markets have better economic outcomes. Nearly the entire first-world has adopted the US model of economics. People forget that at one time it was radical.

yea. they media knows exactly what they are doing when they zero on those metrics. It's part of a larger ideological push. It's extremely disingenuous.

the argument is simply that going to the farmer's market for local produce, then going on a ski trip to Chile doesn't equal out, doesn't make you a climate warrior, and doesn't make you better than anyone else -- even if you repost Greta Thurnberg on Twitter.

That's just a mathematical fact.

The reality of solving climate change is a separate topic. 70% of emissions come from large corporations -- that's where the impact is and always was going to be made.

it's a good move.

This is spot on. The only wrinkle -- Twitter could actually do something to create separate communities if they wanted. Some large investors have asked them to. They've drafted up plans to create a separate space for financial discussion. Just haven't acted on it.

I really just think it comes down to Twitter being poorly run. I know Paul Singer made a run to have Dorsey replaced as CEO, but eventually backed off. They seem to lean into the divisiveness. It may be beneficial for short-term engagement but it essentially creates a negative emotional experience for customers. And that's going to come home to roost eventually.

this argument is used to justify literally every climate hypocrisy, from pro skiers to billionaires on down

"i do X high-carbon thing to bring awareness to the plebs"

Twitter hasnt even attempted. It's the opposite. They amplify the polarizing content through their trending feed. They love it.

sure. they wont though.

It is. Their advertising is extremely strictly regulated and literally all of their ads and marketing material focus on smoking cessation.

Note: this came after initial warnings from the FDA years ago that they were going to ban the product unless.

it is, generally, yes. But what shapes companies in the long-term is the degree in which they can stem this natural tendency.

I.E. Amazon vs Kodak. Blockbuster vs Best Buy

Nope. This is simply factually incorrect.

Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"

There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms.

Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.

A boxing heavybag.

The best stress reliever imaginable.

no, it isnt. you asked for when a hedge fund was bailed out by a bank. i gave you one. there's many more. that's just the most famous example.

Off the top, Bear Stearns bailed out its main hedge fund after it had to liquidate in what ended up being a precursor to the financial crisis. It happens fairly often.

Long Term Capital Management was bailed out by the government.

Or, the Fed organized it.

They ended up leveraged 100 to 1 and had trillions in bonds.