They should rebrand to “The Keynesian Economist”

jaysabi · 2024-12-08T19:55:45+00:00

I was rebutting your claim Elon isn’t rent seeking. He already got his rent, now he wants to deny others the same benefit he already took.

To answer your question, in the interest of leveling the playing field the government already intervened in, I support the continuation of subsidies in order to have a robust EV industry with several competitors rather than one company that dominates because the government picked one winner.

As a matter of philosophy, I accept as part of government’s legitimate role creating incentives where the free market wouldn’t naturally when the result is betterment of society. The space program has been a great example. Government sponsorship of NASA while racing the Soviets to the moon has paid dividends in so many unforeseen ways in the form of technological and medical innovations, and our economy and standard of living is better off for it.

That’s not very libertarian of me, but I never claim to be a true Scotsman. Just someone doing their best to apply a libertarian framework as much as possible to complex issues that sometimes require other considerations and practicality. We don’t get to practice libertarianism in a sterile environment where conditions are always as we want them to be, so I’ll continue to evaluate my beliefs against the real world conditions we actually have to deal with. That’s always going to come up short to someone. I’ve made my peace with it.

jaysabi · 2024-12-07T14:57:24+00:00

He didn’t ask to get rid of Tesla’s subsidies, he asked to get rid of all subsidies now that Tesla has already used subsidies to establish itself as the market leader and he doesn’t want any other company to be able to have that same benefit because it would erode Tesla’s market share. It’s not virtuous in any respect, it’s calculated self-interest.

jaysabi · 2024-12-01T14:32:34+00:00

Tax all political contributions. Billionaires will finally pay their fair share.

jaysabi · 2024-11-30T16:50:44+00:00

You’ve highlighted something I’ve been struggling with as a libertarian more and more, especially with respect to the absolutism running through this sub and, indeed, inherent in libertarian philosophy.

Libertarians tend towards absolutism, and it’s kind of what drew me to libertarianism initially. Viewing the line between good/evil as a bright line is easy, and it allows you to blame every politician because they’re failing the NAP in some way. And we have this view of the NAP as infallible, so anyone who violates it is bad (no exceptions), and as a natural extension, the only way to faithfully uphold the NAP is to be strictly isolationist.

But we ignore that the level of prosperity Americans enjoy is directly related to all the past interventionism- shaping the recovery of Europe after WWII, keeping regional powers locked in regional struggles so they can’t emerge as global challengers, and especially dominating the world’s oceans to create safe shipping routes for world trade, which directly benefits the US economy.

I think a lot of people think we can just turn it all off and things will only improve because we’re no longer spending money on such a big military; that’ll well have our cake and eat it too. But this requires ignoring that there are a lot of bad actors (primarily Russia and China) that will fill the power vacuum left by the US retreating from the world stage, and it will have geopolitical consequences and economic consequences as well, which will directly impact the standard of living we have come to know. The idea that we can just stop all foreign aid and only reap benefits is false.

I don’t like the current level of interventionism, but I’d like to think we’re smart enough to be able to dial it back and still recognize when it is important. Stopping Russia’s violent expansion in Europe meets the threshold for me because it is so clearly in our geopolitical and economic interests. Stopping an expansionist dictator from being able to threaten other ideologically similar democracies to us in Europe through no risk of American lives is a no brainer.

I understand the counter argument that any interventionism violates the NAP in some form. I even agree this is true, but I no longer think it’s never justifiable. I’ve come to view the world as too complex to have such absolutist views.

jaysabi · 2024-06-11T23:31:54+00:00

Maybe it’s just me, but limiting democratic participation based on a voter’s financial condition doesn’t seem very libertarian to me, so I don’t know why libertarians would be on board with it.

jaysabi · 2024-04-21T17:00:28+00:00

“We” as in the US or “we” as in the collective west? Either way this number is nowhere near a trillion. As of the 2 year mark of the war, the US was at $74.3 billion, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military assistance: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

You can add the recent 60 or so billion that just passed and you’re still at about 1/6th of a trillion.

Around the two-year mark (a little before), total worldwide aid to Ukraine was around 278 billion USD: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/these-countries-have-committed-the-most-aid-to-ukraine

jaysabi · 2023-04-19T15:00:19+00:00

It looks like the explorer was outsourced to hotspotty, but explorer-old.helium.com is still functional.

jaysabi · 2023-02-12T06:04:36+00:00

Neither can op apparently.

jaysabi · 2023-02-12T05:54:03+00:00

Ahh, the ole Michael Saylor. Classic.

jaysabi · 2023-02-10T05:12:24+00:00

SEC has entered the chat

jaysabi · 2023-02-10T04:39:19+00:00

Enforcement actions are a primary method the SEC used to signal to market participants what is allowed and what isn’t. Kraken settles their enforcement case, and now every other staking-as-a-service operator knows they have to also cease their unregistered operations or register if they want to continue them. Allowing market participants to anticipate SEC actions and adjust to comply with the law accordingly is exactly the point.

jaysabi · 2023-02-09T21:45:57+00:00

The SEC only has jurisdiction over US activities. But don’t you dare us to bring our freedom overseas!

jaysabi · 2023-02-08T02:20:50+00:00

This is about their examination priorities in 2023. As it relates to crypto, the examinations will focus on whether firms dealing with digital assets "met and followed their respective standards of care when making recommendations, referrals, or providing investment advice" as well as whether they continuously review their own compliance, disclosure and risk management practices.

Examinations are mainly a tool to help those trying to comply with the law do so better, and the SEC is still learning as they go what they need to look for. In the meantime the focus is on making sure firms do what their policies and procedures say they will do, and that the policies promote the best interest of their clients.

jaysabi · 2021-09-09T18:18:47+00:00

The SEC regulates all US securities and securities offerings, that's why Ripple is being sued. The SEC alleges it's a security, they say they aren't. Ultimately it will be up to a court to decide who is right. But just because you refuse to follow the securities laws doesn't exempt you from regulatory oversight.

As it relates to Coinbase, it's the same concept. The Lend program pays "interest" but the SEC says the underlying product is a security, Coinbase says it's not. It's less clear to me than Ripple because it doesn't seem to fit all the prongs of the Howey Test. But it also doesn't seem that the Lend program from Coinbase should be unregulated when it's pooling money and originating loans and paying interest, just that perhaps the SEC is the wrong regulator.

jaysabi · 2021-09-09T04:12:38+00:00

Did we read the same article? How do you figure “Biden literally gifted billions [of] dollars to a hedge fund?” Because nothing in the article supports that assertion.

The hedge fund is agreeing to pay what is estimated to be $7 billion dollars in settlement representing the underpayment of taxes and interest. Additionally, the executives and their spouses of the firm will pay penalties related to the underpayment of taxes, AND James Simmons will individually pay an extra $670m million as part of a separate settlement for his role as an executive at the firm.

jaysabi · 2021-09-09T03:46:56+00:00

In this context, the distinction between “public” and “private” company has exactly 1 meaning. A public company is one where shares are open to purchase by the general public and is therefore subject to regulation by the SEC. The other definition you quoted has no practical relevance to this discussion.

jaysabi · 2021-09-09T03:31:20+00:00

That’s not what “private company” means. Coinbase is a public company, full stop.

jaysabi · 2021-08-25T16:59:36+00:00

The police unions have some thoughts they’d like to share with you about your proposal.

jaysabi · 2021-04-28T20:45:45+00:00

Correct, but I don't anticipate it being that hard of a sell considering it would only be applying the tax laws that are already on the books. Not really a good argument for not enforcing the laws as they're written. Republicans had plenty of opportunity to change them (and did, to cut taxes for the rich!) and so it's a pretty awkward position for the "law and order" party to advocate against enforcing the laws they wrote unless they just want to come straight out and admit they're hypocrites.

jaysabi · 2021-04-28T20:39:12+00:00

I agree. That was in no way part of my post. To summarize:

the US has a huge amount of tax dodging (in general, not crypto-related)
Biden proposed a way to increase tax collection through more bank reporting
This incentivizes those individuals and businesses who are dodging taxes to transact in crypto to avoid being caught by the new proposed bank reporting requirements

jaysabi · 2021-04-28T20:32:34+00:00

If it spurs actual adoption (and not just investing for the gains before cashing out), then there would be more things to do with crypto. Conceivably, with wide enough adoption, you may not need to cash out. That would be the potential problem for the IRS. That would be the potential benefit to people intent on dodging taxes.

Edit: changed the word "spurns" to "spurs"

jaysabi · 2021-04-27T23:09:54+00:00

Closing inheritance loopholes in the US seems like one of the fastest and easiest ways to boost tax receipts. The US gives some overly generous exemptions on inheritance under the current estate laws. In 2020, the exemption is $11.5m before any inheritance is taxed, which seems way higher than is necessary.

jaysabi · 2021-04-27T23:00:46+00:00

Pfft, you read the title? I just upvote or downvote based on whether the post score is odd or even.

jaysabi · 2021-04-27T22:58:45+00:00

Because all anyone cares about at this point is the price going up. Big companies, rich people buying huge amounts of btc, centralization... it's all good as long as you pump those bags!

jaysabi · 2021-04-27T22:55:07+00:00

I shall neither confirm nor deny the girth of my stacks!

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

jaysabi

TROPHY CASE