1. I don't want to love it. I hate it. You can learn to live with things you hate though, and not have it impact your day to day life or mental health though.
2. Its still a bomb. Until we find out how we can de-value the data, it will have an incentive to be stolen.
One thought here that I don't personally agree with, but might be important regardless:
Imagine a society without secrets or privacy at all for example.
I don't personally like the sounds of it, but it is sort of where we're headed at the moment, and if the fundamental reality is that obtaining data is much more easy than defending it, then perhaps we need to come to terms with a world without privacy, and how to create the best version of that unconstrained world.
Again, I don't like the sounds of this, but I'm curious to read more about it. Can someone give a philosophical pitch of why GDPR style regs on personal and company data are so important?
Heh, some people get really mad and downvote when you point out we don't reason very much. Forget reasoning, we have a hard enough time being rational.
2. Even if it didn't work, Georgism is fundamentally a more just and fair system.
3. The world really needs it right now. Housing, wealth inequality, climate change, the inability for most populations to understand how to properly balance aspects of capitalism and socialism.
Friends let their friends know about Georgism! Do the right thing!
When georgists refer to land, they are referring to locations - not dirt.
Locations refer to the sections of physical 2D space that makes up a country. Why 2D when the world is 3D? Because parcels are allocated and segmented based on a 2D model.
Locations are best thought of as being similar to "spectrum" (what typically gets auctioned off every few years to the highest bidder) - there is a total fixed amount. Nobody made the physical space, and nobody will make more of it in the future. It all existed before life even began on this planet, and it will exist long after all of us are dead.
I think this is actually the problem with Georgism. The world has plenty of dirt. Locations are in short supply. Georgism taxes away the gain from the creation of Locations, which is an important economic activity. For example, most of London's suburbia was created by the building of the metropolitan railways around 100-150 years ago. Places that were too far from London to be useful suddenly became Locations, and the railway companies made back the money they spent to build the railways by selling these new Locations for home building (now known as Metroland).
Although we don't have LVT in the UK, it interesting that we have another restriction on the creation of Locations: Planning laws in the UK are extremely hard and expensive to navigate and get permission to build pretty much anything, so the creation of new Locations is pretty much impossible. And that doesn't seem to be a good thing.
> Georgism taxes away the gain from the creation of Locations
The premise of Georgism is that there is no creation of locations (at least unless you're in the business of creating planets).
> Places that were too far from London to be useful suddenly became Locations
No, those were always locations, before and after the construction of railways made them more valuable. Accordingly, Georgists ain't interested in taxing the gains of the railways themselves; we're only interested in taxing the gains of the landowners profiting off of their land suddenly being more valuable from no contribution of their own. Under LVT the railway companies still would've made their money back in droves — probably moreso if they're only paying taxes on the land under the railroads instead of the actual railroads themselves!
For the collective (humanity, mathematical/scientific community etc). Math is not done in isolation, and if somebody does so then feedback to the community does not work as well.
Mathematics, and basic science to a degree, face the issue that they create their own problems and paths through this kind of tranformation, where external feedback is secondary. It is not as if "I want to build an app/car/robot, I let AI do it". It is as if you decide to let AI decide what to build for you and how to build it, and you do nothing at all. Instead, the pursuit of understanding is the goal itself, and through the course of humanity we have learnt that this understanding can also be useful, but this is not necessarily guiding how this understanding is gained.
Most of the contexts people here have in mind are when problems are well and externally defined. Cure a disease, optimise an engine, make an app that does X, etc. This is not exactly the case in theoretical math and never was really.
I have dyscalculia so the math world is dead to me, I can't even add 2 numbers together in my head, but I've read here on HN many times over the years people describe some version of new maths frameworks tangibly changing how they view the world. For me, I went to film school - I have a natural ability to think in movies and pictures, memory is very visual for me, before film school I had a good sense of shape, colour, light. After film school and to this day some 20 plus years later, I mostly look at the world starting with the shadows. Russian speakers, whose language has separate basic words for light blue and dark blue, are slightly faster at telling those shades apart. Speakers of languages that use compass directions instead of "left/right" appear to develop a strong, constant sense of orientation.
These things can only happen through the process, so for who? For people who want to live richer lives, want to think differently, and for you, to be around people who have such.
For math, the value of proving a theorem is often not proving the theorem (which most people already believe correctly to be true or false), but the path taken there, the new math invented, and how it can be applied to other problems. The end result is therefore almost inconsequential in moving math forwards.
Redistribution that enhances production rather than stifling it. Which provides justice rather than creating injustice. A great idea to bury under dust for centuries.
well... georgism is sort of orthogonal to capitalism and socialism. You could have a georgist tax regime in both capitalist and socialist utopia.
But... yes... it would be great if enough people knew about Henry George and Georgism that the Gallup people thought it was worthwhile to put it on a survey.
And allow me to bemoan the current state of affairs where the definitions of capitalism and socialism used by most Americans are defined by tribal communities whose (sub)social order depends on the in-crowd toeing a particular party line with respect to whom is allowed to extract rent, set prices, rent and tax rates. Which is to say, if you're comfortably making seven figures on your constellation of payday loan offices, you probably a fan of the status quo.
For my right-wing nut-job friends, remember, there are "socialist" countries like Sweden, Denmark and (arguably) Canada which are perfectly pleasant. Venezuela and Cuba's problems aren't due to their "socialist" nature, but to wide-spread corruption and oligarchy. Keynes (and even Marx) had interesting things to say, though doctrinaire adoption of political and economic philosophy from previous centuries is not likely a good idea.
For my left-wing pinko friends, remember, not all "capitalism" is regressive. Even places like Sweden, Denmark and Canada have a form of capitalism despite being mildly constrained by collective action. Hayak had interesting things to say, though doctrinaire adoption of political and economic philosophy from previous centuries is not likely a good idea.
It's worth a read. I wish there was a single volume "MMT for Dummies," but to get the full read on it, you currently have to read a bunch of different texts. I like the Wikipedia article because they include some of the critiques as well as the supporting arguments.
My take on economics is there are few theories that are universally applicable. Keynes is applicable to some situations as is Hayak and even E. F. Schumacher. The hard part is figuring out which theory is good for which situation (and how to tell if your assumption about applicability was wrong.)
What I find surprising about modern Americans is they really want to elect someone who has all the answers. FDR was somewhat famous for f*king up a couple times and changing course when the data didn't match the theory. We're so tribal these days we refuse to admit that even good leaders can get it wrong once and again and having an honest discussion about why the error occurred and how they're going to fix it might lead to better outcomes.
I am reminded of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs' quote "Act like a dumbsh*t and they'll treat you like an equal." Perhaps I should run for office on the platform of "I'm probably as dumb as you are, which makes me smarter than my opponents."
It's kind of too bad MMT came out during a long period of low inflation when a lot of people who should know better expected that to continue indefinitely. So then MMT sounds like "spend more money indefinitely".
Now that inflation is high and MMT says "increase taxes / reduce spending", it sounds far more reasonable.
> Now that inflation is high and MMT says "increase taxes / reduce spending", it sounds far more reasonable.
I don’t think the people that were appalled at loose “fiscal”—more specifically targeted—policy from Congress as a substitute for loose “monetary” policy from the Fed (under the MMT model that the real constraint on “fiscal” policy are its monetary effects rather than fiscal balance) would be any happier with tight “fiscal” policy substituting for tight “monetary” policy from the Fed.
I don’t think they would be happy for the “who pays the bill” when tightening is needed to be one members of Congress have to defend to their constituents anymore than they want “where does stimulus go” to be.
They may like selective appeals to constraints to avoid discussing the specific merits of spending proposals they don’t like, and dislike losing the myth of fiscal constraints, but they still don't want to subject the distributional impact of m monetary tightening to real policy debate.
Georgism is a tax policy, not a full ideology. It can't be implemented under capitalism, because the capitalists would never allow it. And it would ve redundant under working socialism.
Georgism and social credit (canadian, not chinese) are two ideas that the elites better start considering unless they want france 1789 vibes again.
As I say to my left-leaning friends: hey, you know what we should socialize? The money supply. (My right-leaning friends aren't ready for that conversation yet.)
Don't cry---run for office and do as great a job as Mamdani is doing, or find a Georgist who can and support them. Its pretty clear that people are open to giving alternatives a chance to show they can do better.
But. Mamdani just had a good PR campaign. The bar majority of the "good" work he has done was actually some by someone else, the state, former administration.
> But. Mamdani just had a good PR campaign. The bar majority of the "good" work he has done was actually some by someone else, the state, former administration.
PR and communications is a necessary component to demonstrate the value being delivered to your constituents, but the work must still be done. Mamdani is using his position and tenure to prove that Democratic Socialism can and does work, in one of the largest cities in the world, for other potential candidates, and for the voters who might support them. He froze the rent for over 2 million renters, and has recovered in ~$130M in wage theft for delivery workers from DoorDash alone. He's implemented universal childcare for 2-year-olds. He has established enforcement against deceptive and abusive landlord practices, hidden junk fees and misleading charges, and illegal auto-renewals and subscriptions.
"Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast." This will be the case study for every mayoral election over the next decade, and who to vote for: putting promise into practice.
(as of this comment, Mamdani polls at ~69% for favorability)
It is almost a cliche' that New Yorker's hate their Mayors. I was there for the 3 which were previous to Mamdani, and everybody hated them.
I thought that Mamdani would set back the cause of Democratic Socialism by 100 years, because surely, after 2 weeks, everybody would just start hating him and the mainstream of both parties could point to him as an obvious warning.
But he's the most popular politician in the country. That doesn't happen by good P.R. It happens when that pothole which has been there for 3 mayors suddenly gets fixed.
There is only a finite number of times you can see:
1. A pothole get fixed Mamdani has repaired over 200,000 of them.
2. Your landlord finally repairs that leaky roof. Mamdani has had landlords do $34 million worth of repairs and upkeep they were legally obliged to do.
3. Or Door Dash finally paid you for those hours you worked....
...yeah, that only happens a finite number of times before you ask yourself? Why didn't any of the other mayors do that? What were the other mayers doing with that 8.5% income tax I pay to live in this city?
And from there it's just a short step to asking "why has government taken all my money in taxes and given me nothing in return?"
It's not P.R. man. It is an existential threat to the mainstream politicians.
Even Astra max which actually put one leg on each side of the bike still somehow messed it up because when it added the bike chain, it put the left leg between the bike chain and the frame.
> The differences between the pelicans aren't huge, but the xhigh one has a better beak.
If you look carefully, everything except the last pelican has the two legs both in front of the crossbar as if the legs are all on one side of the bike.
Misplaced legs clearly indicate lack is spatial reasoning - the llm can reason about verbal idea of a bicycle but not about the actual object. The fact that this model got it correct gives me a pause. Did they figure out spatial reasoning? Or did this complain trickle down to the training set?
1. I don't want to love it. I hate it. You can learn to live with things you hate though, and not have it impact your day to day life or mental health though.
2. Its still a bomb. Until we find out how we can de-value the data, it will have an incentive to be stolen.
One thought here that I don't personally agree with, but might be important regardless:
Imagine a society without secrets or privacy at all for example.
I don't personally like the sounds of it, but it is sort of where we're headed at the moment, and if the fundamental reality is that obtaining data is much more easy than defending it, then perhaps we need to come to terms with a world without privacy, and how to create the best version of that unconstrained world.
Again, I don't like the sounds of this, but I'm curious to read more about it. Can someone give a philosophical pitch of why GDPR style regs on personal and company data are so important?
reply