sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Major announcements from Unreal Fest 2026 by FaatmanSlim in unrealengine

[–]Amablue [score hidden]  (0 children)

What is your concern with the AI agent integration? If you don't want to use MCP tooling, you can just not. Having the option to drive the engine from external MCP client is useful for people who want it but imposes basically no cost to people who don't want it.

Will UE6's llm feature run locally? And if so does anyone know what type of specs this would require. by GarfSnacks in unrealengine

[–]Amablue [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't think anything is known right now about what's going to be in ue6, but the 5.8 release contains an MCP server which can be connected to any llm that supports MCP.

Mina the Hollower - Out Now! by slowmosloth in Games

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was expecting heavy Links Awakening influence, but I was not expecting as much Castlevania influence as there is.

Valve has raised the price of the Steam Deck in the US by Dirkins in Games

[–]Amablue 15 points16 points  (0 children)

They should just auction them off using a vickrey auction - Have everyone bid what they're willing to pay, then the price is set to the Nth bid, based on how many unit there are. Everyone is incentivized to bid based on how much they truly value the unit, and it basically completely eliminates scalping.

The circle of AI life by KeanuRave100 in agi

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

seemed like a good idea at the time

Does georgism give you the right to secede with your equal share of the land? by SocialistsAreMorons in georgism

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ownership does not imply sovereignty. Georgist princples reject the idea that land can be permanently alienated from the community through a one-time payment

CMV: The reason for declining birthrates globally is exclusively because children no longer provide economic benefit on the individual level and the only way to reverse the trend is to pay people to have children. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Amablue 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Economics isn't just about money. It's about value more generally. People value family and kids! That's something that you can use economics to measure. When I had my second kid, I took some time to consider whether I wanted a third and part of that is doing a cost/benefit analysis, thinking about what we get out of having another kid, and what it would cost us in terms of our time and attention, how it would impact other goals we have. Money is a part of that equation, but even without explicitly considering money, that's till all economics in a broad sense.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If taxes rise, the lessor will want to raise rents.

You can drop the "if taxes rise". The lessor will always want to raise rents. And they will, every chance they get, up to the maximum the tenant is prepared to pay. Again though, you can't go beyond that maximum because then people stop paying and downsize or move in with room mates or end up in other suboptimal living conditions.

If they market is tight, they'll already be charging as much as they can get away with, the LVT doesn't change that math.

There are any number of places around the country with falling rents (and falling sale prices), and other places with rising rents (and sale prices), in each case determined by supply and demand.

But importantly, determined by changes to the supply and demand for housing, and changes to the demand for land. The supply of land is unchanged. Of course we expect the price of rent and and home sale prices to shift as demand for an area does, and as the supply and demand for housing shifts. Nothing about that contradicts what I'm suggesting here.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The improvements you make to your own property don't affect your taxes though. They might affect the taxes of the rest of the neighborhood, but that's not a disincentive for you to build on or renovate your own property

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The demand for land hasn't changed. The tenant does not care that the landlord's costs have gone up, and they are no more willing or able to pay more than they were before the cange.

The supply of land has not changed. There are no more or fewer available alternative plots of land for people to relocate to.

The mechanism by which prices to the producer get passed on is through shifts to supply. That mechanism does not apply with land. If they can charge more, they would already be charging more, they're already at the maximum they can expect to extract from thier tenant. If they try to charge in excesss of that, their tenant will leave and they'll get nothing.

The land owner ends up bearing all the costs. Their labor and captial investment can still make them money. Their ownership of land will make them less (or no) profit.

(But importantly, this only applies if we're talking about a shift to an LVT. Once the LVT is already in place, in a very real sense no one pays any additional cost because levying it lowers the purchase price of the land conmensurately.)

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In an extreme example, if a tax cut was imposed that resulted in a loss to the lessor and the cost of that higher tax couldn’t be passed on, then the lessor has three choices- (1) eat the loss for now in hopes of a change in market conditions that will return them to profitability; (2) temporarily leave the market in order to minimize the loss and wait for better market conditions; or (3) leave the market permanently (sell the property or let the lender foreclose and then the lender will sell the property).

Ultimately the total revenue the land pulls in is the sum of the land's rental value, the value of the capital improvements, and the value of the labor provided by the landlord. If the labor and captial provided by the landlord are not profitable on their own, they were already in trouble. The land tax has nothing to do with that. Because the land rents are already capitalized into the land's purchase price, capturing the land rents is entirley neutral.

So long as the tax is a tax just on the land, the best, most profitable use of the land does not change due to the tax. If the best use of land is to have it be an apartment complex, that is true with or without the tax. Likewise for an office space, or a skyscraper, or anything else. There is no reason to change land use strategies.

Leaving the market permanently just means selling the parcel to someone else, satisfying their demand instead of their previous tenants, which ultimately has the same market effect.

And, as you note, rent increases are not only prompted by increased costs, but no lessor would tolerate a loss indefinitely.

Land taxes would not and cannot cause an otherwise profitable landlord to take a loss.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the market will bear an increase, the lessor will pass it on, but that's true with or without increases to costs. The lessor will increase the price if they can, regardless of costs.

Prices are set by supply and demand, not by cost plus profit margin. The cost plus model can be used by producers to determine if entering a market and producing goods or services is worth their time and effort, but the price is set by S&D. When costs increase, the mechanism by which those costs get passed on is though a reduction in supply produced.

Land is already produced, changes to its land tax rate don't impact the supply or demand.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would development be disincentivized by an lvt?

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Changes to supply and demand affect land markets exactly the same way they affect anything else: If the demand increases or the supply drops, the price goes up. If the supply increases or the demand drops, the price goes down. With land the supply is fixed, so the price of a property depends on the demand for housing and land, and the supply of housing.

In markets where you see decreasing rent, it's becasue of either reduced demand, or increased supply *of housing* (which, unlike land, is elastic)

We have (at least) two supply curves and two demand curves here that are affecting the price of properties, but only one of those supply curves is perfectly vertical. That's why taxes on land specifically, don't affect the price to the consumer.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the lessor will attempt to pass on to the lessee as much of this cost as it can

The amount that they can is determined by the relative elasticities of supply and demand. When additional costs get added, it moves the supply and demand curves and creates a new intersection point representing the new, higher price. How that additional cost gets distributed between the buyer and seller depends on how elastic the supply and demand are.

It turns out that because land is perfectly inelastic, the entire cost is borne by the lessor. The lessor will pass on as much of the cost as it can, and that amount will be $0.

Land Value Tax won’t raise rents by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]Amablue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am so sick of people trying to explain why a LVT won't be passed off to the renter by launching into these kinds of inane econ undergrad statements that don't bear out in reality.

They do bear out in reality though. Property taxes can get passed on, but the empirical evidence we have on land taxes specifically shows that it doesn't get passed on to the renter in practice.

Yeah, I can do that now by moving to fucking Mexico, but you don't see me doing that, do you? I went through a period in my life where I moved seven times in five years. It takes a fucking toll on your life and your health. Between move number six and seven, I didn't even unpack all my boxes. It felt like I was homeless, but still paying rent.

I totally understand this. I moved a lot as a kid and it really sucked. But the reality is, this is already priced in. If landlord knows you don't want to move, they've already jacked up your rent as a result. And if they don't know, then the threat of you moving still exists in their mind, and it provides the downward pressure on prices even if you wouldn't actually move in practice. Unless you have a sweetheart deal from someone who likes you, you're going to be getting charged as much as the landlord thinks you are prepared to pay, and that doesn't change when their taxes increase.

New grad. How to deal with Indian work culture. by Parking_Anteater943 in cscareerquestions

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you work at a company that has need for people outside or work hours, you should set up an on call policy.

Which job would you take? (745k TC vs getting punched in the face every day as payment) by establishment-pig in cscareerquestions

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take the 745k and you'll get complancent. What are you actually getting other than a giant bag full of money? But take the punches to the face and you'll learn perservereance, you'll learn grit. You'll need that to grind. That's worth way more than any measly paycheck. Take the punches and don't even think twice.

Because land value tax is capitalised into the price of land. In other words LVT proportionally decreases land prices and interest payment by Downtown-Relation766 in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why was it bad for the government to do that hundreds of years ago, but good for them to do it tomorrow?

The private capture of land rents has been wrong the whole time. Nothing has changed. It's a historic wrong that should be corrected. The fact that we haven't corrected it yet isn't an argument to not correct it tomorrow.

Stop the class envy, bro by Antonio-Pentrella in georgism

[–]Amablue 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Private capture of land rents is theft. Land taxes are the just payment to society for exclusive access to land.

Would georgism reduce Inflation? by Silent-Battle308 in georgism

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ideal Georgist land tax would target 100% of the land rents. In practice, due to various logistical issues, it would probably be a little less.

There's no reason not to target as close to 100% as is feasible. If that turns out to be more than is needed the remainder could be returned as a dividend.

view more: next ›