grinnbearit

7 ms·

1.
by grinnbearit 9y ago
I don't know about a lot of other countries but India's economic boom started after liberalisation[1] in the 90s, before that India was far poorer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind.
2.
by grinnbearit 9y ago
Aesthetic preferences exist for a reason, they've also been selected for and would often correlate with health indicators. In the end reproductive success is all that's selected for, even at the expense of the host for the gene, l
3.
by grinnbearit 9y ago
Chris Stucchio wrote an interesting blog post which changed my mind on this. Instead of exacerbating it, a Machine Learning model can actively correct for bias. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/alien_intelli
4.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
A progressive consumption tax is less distortive (favours productivity over consumption) than a progressive income tax, its just harder to implement.
5.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
You'd always prefer $100 today vs $100 in a year. In order to convince someone to invest you need to offer them more than that in the future. If the discount rate is 10% (not bank interest, just how much I personally value time) then u
6.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
You tax capital gains differently than earned income to incentivise investment over consumption. This is because consumption today is always more valuable than consumption in the future (the discount rate).
7.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
The Sino Indian war is more complicated than that, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-...
8.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
One man's "crap" is another's fine dining. I believe values are subjective and we choose what we value with our wallets. > teaches them to have low expectations from what they buy Do you not think that this is a pater
9.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
Profits come from satisfying people's values [1], if more "higher quality" doesn't lead to more profits, it isn't valued. As an aside, I'd be skeptical of Artists who produce "Inspiring work" which re
10.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
That doesn't makes sense, the only reason race would matter is if we're not using all other available information For example, imagine if income perfectly explained default rates. Then in that case, the race of the person wouldn&#
11.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
It also incentivises the google engineer to be as productive as they possibly can, assuming that salaries are indicative of marginal utility. Otherwise the engineer could spend his brain power on his own hobby projects while mowing grass fo
12.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
Valuable for satisfying human desires The theory is that people spend money on what they desire, and so companies that generate more money satisfy more human values. You will always find outliers and exceptions (caused by negative externali
13.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
Finance isn't evil; day trading, investment banking, venture capital are all sharing information with the world and trying to move money to places where its more valuable. There is a case to be made about "negative externalities&q
14.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
The reason we (as a society) inflate currencies is because of "sticky wages". People are loss averse and react much worse to a 5% pay cut than positively to a 5% pay rise. Because of this, businesses needing to adjust downwards be
15.
by grinnbearit 10y ago
People get value out of a society by consuming goods and services, income is how we as a society measure the value a person provides. Income Tax taxes value provided, Consumption Tax taxes value consumed. -- Consumption taxes can also be sc
16.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Here's an interesting video that takes that into account. Twins, even those that grow up separately, are remarkably similar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDFh74eENuw
17.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
How about a progressive consumption tax?
18.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Proportional representation makes sense because morality & values are subjective. Its implementation leaves a lot to be desired (see futarchy).
19.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
I disagree, take India and China, both developing nations with populations that are significantly better off after adopting some form of Capitalism.
20.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Actually yes, Chris Stucchio's posts on the subject are pretty in depth starting with https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html You could also look at the book, Flash Boy's Not So Fast, wh
21.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
> The idea that women's liberation and the abolishment of slavery are "arbitrarily" positive things, and that we may like them exactly as likely as we may not via some senseless quirk of history, seems pretty asinine and l
22.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Thanks for the tips, r/AskPhilosophy has a lot of discussion on the topic. I am also interested to know why you seem to prefer Moral Realism. > As such, to claim that "there is no objective morality" as axiomatic, is to en
23.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Moral realists have the upper hand? Are you willing to share some articles covering the topic? For example, http://slatestarcodex.com/ and http://lesswrong.com/ have plenty of essays arguing for moral subje
24.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Why do you think house prices and rents are very correlated? People buy houses as an investment which can very quickly raise the price while rents depend on housing demand which depends on different factors. I did this analysis for where I
25.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Hmm, thats a lot to respond to, I'm going to start with just a small part initially. I'm not taking free markets to be a foundation for morality, I'm saying that I believe morality and values to be subjective. Markets are jus
26.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
What I mean is that they're both consensus mechanisms to deal with subjectivity. For democracy, its subjective morality while for capitalism its subjective desires. Its an interesting thought experiment to switch the mechanisms and pr
27.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Oops, that wasn't clear, money is a distributed consensus system to figure out how to satisfy _their values_. You earn money from people when you satisfy their values, and spend money to get yours satisfied. I do think that people are
28.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Yes, those are some of the issues with 'Laissez Faire'. There are always winners and losers in any system and I feel that some redistribution to "take the edge of" is a good thing. (But perhaps not your specific policy s
29.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
Its not a fair comparison. Businesses have a single, all important goal, to generate a profit so a top down plan can and does work. People on the other hand have different and changing values. Money is a distributed consensus system to figu
30.
by grinnbearit 11y ago
I've had 2 discussions on this topic, I'd love to hear you thoughts on them. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9335125 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9510919 TLDR, If you believe va

More ›