kenmicklas

5 ms·

1.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
I think that's an incomplete summary; a major driver of this is the difference in availability of success (at least according to older generation's standards) between older and younger generations.
2.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Divide evenly by number of people? It's really not that difficult.
3.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Instead of calling my argument horrendous with no justification, maybe you could try engaging with it. I, too, would like to just call you a right-wing libertarian nutjob or something like that and move on with life, but hopefully something
4.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Nope. I would argue that most parents want that because the economic system we live in compels them to.
5.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Actually, we live in quite a dystopian reality. Your only argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I never said that a child should not benefit from their caretakers. Only that they should not inherit economic wealth which they did not produce
6.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. UBI would raise rents and therefore encourage sprawl.
7.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
And I don't want you to be able to do that. If this is supposed to be a rational position you're going to need more justification than "you want it".
8.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Why not? Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Having this safety net available for everyone and not just the rich would reduce the need for wealth hoarding in the first place. Your ideology has no justification besides you
9.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
That's exactly the problem. It would encourage unsustainable sprawl to a massive degree.
10.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
I think the bigger issue than lending is that if it's not funded with a land value tax then all the increase in income will be eaten up in rent.
11.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
That's not wage theft though. You can't be paid after you're dead. Inheritance is just legalized aristocracy.
12.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
I think these enormous tracts of suburban and rural land that were populated with government subsidies and no real economic reason to exist should be slowly and gracefully depopulated, with people settling denser areas (which we have a scar
13.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
> They offer a certain quality of life many desire. But at an enormous cost to the environment, tax base, and economic resilience of society. It's legitimate for people in the cities to ask whether they want to keep subsidizing this
14.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
How is it science? We literally have direct empirical evidence that suggests the contrary, but physicists do complicated mental gymnastics to come up with other explanations that fit their preconceived notions better.
15.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
It's only inconsistent if you assume information can't travel faster than the speed of light, for which there is no basis besides gospel.
16.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
It turns out if you make unjustified assumptions (information can't travel faster than light) you can make unjustified conclusions (no hidden variables).
17.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
On an aggregate scale it doesn't make sense to talk about a system based on "saving". You can't eat money in retirement. So retirees are always extracting some fraction of the productive output of current labor. This fra
18.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
I'm with you up until the left has never been "for the people", like wat?
19.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
In this case property tax (the non-land component of it) only exacerbates the problem though.
20.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
You're projecting our experience of time onto what is a timeless mathematical essence. The idea that OP is referring to is that the universe "exists" simply because it is internally consistent.
21.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... for a detailed analysis of this effect
22.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
It sounds like you are advocating something like IP mercantilism which is even worse than the original mercantilism considering that IP is not a zero-sum commodity. It should be distributed as widely as possible.
23.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
It's really not. SF public policy can barely be counted as liberal and seeing people on HN calling it "leftist" is maddening.
24.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
SF and California at large is run by liberal Democrats, but that's a far cry from actual leftism.
25.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Finance and markets are not the same thing though.
26.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
It drives me crazy seeing people claim to "just" prefer living in the car-oriented suburbs when 1) that lifestyle is vastly subsidized by economic activity generated in the cities 2) the biggest reason cities are unpleasant is (su
27.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
Modern capitalists are way too efficient at moving capital via financialization for that to work in practice.
28.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
This is an inevitable consequence of the commodification of housing.
29.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
What you're describing sounds like the experience in any developing country. You haven't given any evidence that it's due to socialism. (Though comparing to my experiences in developing capitalist countries I would say Cuba h
30.
by kenmicklas 8y ago
The fact that you are being downvoted for this is such a perfect proof of what you're saying, ironically.

More ›