Saturday assorted links


#2: the usual stuff - a modestly interesting, if lengthy, anecdote throwing light on a supposed problem, followed by a preposterous "solution". Pah!

Oh. I didn't make it as far as the solution. I guess it is a Universal Basic Income plug - 1k per month.

I also wondered whats going on where her (his?) Mom finds it necessary to break the stipend up into 2 monthly checks.

Full disclosure - my mom gave my sister money to buy a car so she gave me the same amount too.

That last bit isn’t a plot twist given your posts

I wonder whether the writer knew what a very American thing her situation is: FDR still received an allowance from his mum while he was President.

"... very American thing ..."

Yeah, like the car for a high school graduation gift. Not! These things are only for the elite. Working class kids get their first job at 16, not counting o

"... very American thing ..."

Yeah, like the car for a high school graduation gift. Not! These things are only for the elite. Working class kids get their first job at 16, not counting odd jobs like raking leaves, mowing lawns, and shoveling snow off of driveways. Working class kids buy their first car with their savings from demeaning jobs like serving arrogant and entitled elites. They pay for their own community college courses, soon realizing they are wasting their money.

Cool story bro.

"....Very NYT thing..." the NYT follows the same pattern the U.S. Government did in WWII. Let the Japanese attack so we can declare war. The bomber was not described as a high-level technician. Instead, a link to Trump was made. Now, we have a headline regarding gun control when the immediate response should be unifying. The common theme should not be politicization, but mental health. And, what if, what if the NYT headlines have radicalized one of these men?

As did young Winston Churchill, I imagine.

Despite his father’s (josh) best intentions, these trips had instilled a sense that war was to be celebrated, that there was joy and progress and trophies. American exceptionalism sure does its damage

Churchill was diddled out of part of his inheritance from his father by his mother, I read recently.

first legal job at 15, but was hustling lawn mowing, pet and kid sitting, freelance swim lessons etc. from when I was 12. I did get a $2 weekly allowance, but it took about 3 hours of work to earn it.

Trump got $200K per year by age 3. Very American thing indeed.

There is no 36 hours in Iraq. O-ring stuff.

''This is not the moment for us to be making deals,'' one official said. ''It's the moment to stand firm. And besides, if this proposal was really so hot, the King would have pushed hard to deliver it the minute he arrived last night instead of waiting almost 36 hours to hand it over.'

Hours before the government planned to lift a nighttime curfew, explosions ... Three blasts tore through Baghdad on Saturday, killing at least 36 people

The number of hours may vary, but much the same complaint can be heard ... on for years and has cost American taxpayers $36 million so far.

The obligatory derogatory Trump comment. Good, now that's out of the way.

#2) Summary: my parents spent much of their own money supporting my arts career. Children of non-wealthy parents don't have that advantage. Instead of transferring some of my (parents') money to those children of the non-wealthy though, I propose denying other wealthy parents the option of spending their own money on their children.

Also, my parents spent much of their money on my arts career as a form of consumption. Non-wealthy children can only become professional artists if a non-relative finds supporting their arts careers worthy. Otherwise, those non-wealthy children must do something economically productive, i.e., something that someone would voluntarily pay them for. I propose that we force other non-related people to pay these non-wealthy children to do something economically unproductive.

Thanks BC for that summary. I could not find however what her 'solution' was, what, more public funding for the arts? I did like the fact that rich parents can give their kids $30k tax free every year and not run afoul of inheritance tax. As a practical matter, you can commingle funds and avoid such issues, if you trust your 'co-owners', but I digress.

More taxes basically. Tax investment income at a higher rate and tax gifts and inheritance more too. Then we can all be haappy in creative pursuits and the new york arts community will have "new voices"

Uk her then. As a 1%-er, we are very adamant that the government will get nothing from us, nothing. I'm not going to get into how you do that here, but one way is investing in international real estate.

So your practice is to give absolutely nothing back to the country that made your membership in the 1% possible? Not even a little cash to repair the roads you drive on? I suspect even the most ardent low-tax advocates would find your position repulsive.

Interesting she never considers advising pursuit of the useful arts. An engineer can design with great beauty. Look no further than Instagram for people producing artistic welds of high quality. Then your time at work will be toward the improvement of your skills should you decide you need the accolades afforded the "artist" of the economically useless variety, or at least that is purely subjective.

Writing is a useful art you can be paid to do. You have to be good at it though, not an amateur burning your parent's capital gains in Brooklyn.

Also, I learned to weld in art school :).

From the article: "Primarily, we need to fight for free tuition for all higher education and single-payer healthcare. These are solutions that free not only artists but all people from the major financial burdens that derail those living paycheck to paycheck and prevent them from moving forward toward their goals." She goes on to argue for UBI. This should all be easy enough to check. Are there countries that provide free tuition for higher education and single-payer healthcare whose poor become self-sustaining artists? Or do they become government-supported-and-directed artists?

Nstaafl - so who pays the tuition. I think it would be better if all institutions charged tuition and students shop for the best deal. If you want to subsidize the poor, give them the money and then let them choose the best deal. I hear a lot of products and services are traded this way and it works pretty well for canned beans. My guess is not too many poor kids would choose Evergreen College but prolly many would choose Cal Poly SLO.

Not counting the ones who would opt for Trump University.

#1 - finding the 'genealogy' of graffiti using machine learning--I sure hope the grant recipient has a programming background since this problem is easy to state in words but harder than it looks to code. I recall in the late 1980s lots of research in this area, mainly with OCR and converting images to ASCII text.

Bonus trivia: if #1 Emergent Ventures works as advertised, do you realize you can use it to find an 'undiscovered Banksy' work of art? Maybe that's TC's secret desire?! The return of investment would be very great if so!

He's a full-time professional programmer.

& he's interested in doing a lot of things. If he accomplishes half of them Tyler's got a moonshot.

For example, he's interested in tracking relationships between what happens in graffiti/street art and the regular world. As a small example, you may remember that awhile back Elon Musk appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast. Near the end of the discussion Rogan lit up a blunt and passed it to Musk, who took a toke (and a shallow, 'Clintonesque' on at that). That was at, like, I don't know, midnight or so Pacific time. The next day the MSM was all over that toke, though it was a small part of the interview and, you know, who cares? Well, at pretty much the same time a well-know street artist/graffiti writer (two different things, but sometimes one person does both) named LUSH or LUSHSUX did a painting of Elon taking the toke. Rogan posted an image of it to his Instagram, where I spotted it.

So, we've got a real world event, albeit a minor one, Elon Musk pretending to inhale with Joe Rogan, and a graffiti-world event, an image of that event. A minor example of the kind of thing Bogdonoff is interested in. FWIW, here's a post where I make the connection:

#2. Broken link or post deleted. Not sure which. Rried to get there a few different ways. None worked. Or, the content and point are so arcane I missed both completely.

It's still there,

Thanks Bill. That worked. No clue why I couldn't get there from blog email... I got to all the other links.

What happened, AJ, is that somehow some hyphens snuck into Tyler's link (which had been working earlier), we we had this at the end: world-wide-wall.html Those hyphens don't belong there.

#2 Funny how Americans feel the need to show off. I could vive as much money if I wanted. So could my parents. So could my siblings and uncles.

Americans are not the only ones with money.

Correction: give.

Living in your favela, you do not have money to give away, and even if you had any spare money, it would only be the Brazilian real, which is only slightly more valuable the worthless Venezuelan bolivar.

Not true. I leaf a comfortable midle class life.

senor bonesaw bolsonaro,
it is time for your brain scan
to find out whats causing those headaches
dr. tignuyorkur is reading brain scans this week
so theres a lotta ways this could go.

#2 - "Capitalism works best when people actually have capital to invest—in themselves, in their careers, in their communities."

Capitalism works best when the individual is allowed to exercise the liberty to retain the earnings from their productive efforts, which includes investing in the productive efforts of others. Taxes beyond those pooled to build benefits for all, such as roads, discourage productive efforts if the excess is to be expropriated for the benefit of others.

"Taxes beyond those pooled to build benefits for all, such as roads"

Brasil has road tolls. I do not see why I should pay so a billionaire can ship for free his products or fat cats van spend vacation on beaches. Ler them pay for themselves.

#2. Basically she wants the government to take other peoples property by force and give it to her so that she, and other “artists”, can pursue their hobbies full time.

2. roller over. Sorry, I couldn't help myself ("bender over" was a funny line in Coming Home for those who have not seen the Jane Fonda film - her maiden name was Sally Bender). I don't know anything about E.J. Roller (e.j. roller), other than she is from a very different era than I am. Her essay, prose (that's how she describes it) style is a little odd: musings to herself often in quotation marks. $28,000 per year is about social security income, so she seems to be making the case for reverse social security: take it early rather than later. You might be dead later and, besides, what's the point when you are age 70. roller over.

#2 What if someone used $28K per year to start a company providing stuff people wanted to buy instead of subsidizing their personal consumption? Eventually they might even employ someone else. Grow the economy. Increase wealth...

But then they wouldn't be producing useless art that nobody wants to pay for. I don't think you get it...

For some reason the link to #1 got broken. Here's the proper link:

#2 Rich person realizes all the ways in which they're privileged and get to skip over the various barriers the poor face.

Why is this newsworthy? Shouldn't they have already known this?

I'm so tired of these stories coming out year after year where people realize "oh wait, a lot of people in this country face a lot of difficulties I didn't."

Why weren't you paying attention in the first place?

Because we are born, we learn about and come to understand the world through observation and experience both of which necessarily reflect the nature of our own lives.

And which reflects a lack of empathy and curiosity about the lives of their fellow citizens, a failure to understand how the majority of the people are living.

The upper middle class and the rich distract themselves from having to look at the harsh cold light of reality, lest they see reflected back at them the inequities they benefit from.

This is best exemplified by her belief that if everyone got $1000/mo, they would use it to 'pursue their dreams' of being artists, musicians, etc.

If she had come from a truly poor background like many of us did, she'd know that this is nonsense. Some people would use the $1,000 to buy more smokes and booze, some would use it to upgrade to a nicer car (or any car), and some would use it to move to a better neighborhood so their kids could go to a decent school. They might eat out a little more, or buy more or better clothes, or maybe take a vacation once in a while if their basic needs are met. Most poor people are so starved for money and so limited by what they can afford that when you give them a bump in income they just spend it. There will be no saving for art school.

Also, the ranks of the poor are overrepresented by people with poor decision-making skills, low intelligence, low impulse control, or low education - which is why they are poor in the first place. Giving them an extra $1,000/mo will not suddenly turn them into different people. This is especially true for young people, for whom the existence of an extra $1,000/mo might just take away the incentives to do the hard things required to get out of poverty in the first place. The history of windfall money shows that it often hurts poor communities as much as it helps.

Only the wealthy 'artistes' think that everyone else is just dying to spend their money learning art or getting multiple degrees in the humanities.

Finally, good luck making it in the art scene if you don't have a degree from an Ivy League school. Art majors from state colleges are a dime a dozen. We call them 'baristas'.

Excellent points.

I'm less concerned by what people would do with the extra $1,000/month than where it comes from. There is a belief (largely on the Left) that the wealthy have vast pools of consumption and that this money would just be a minor transfer from the "rich's" petty cash to the poor.

In reality, any kind of transfer on this level is going to cut into the money that's available for re-investment in the country. Fundamentally that's a critical part of what drives long term growth.

#2 I would recommend that most people do what is broadly demanded, rather that pursue winner take all type occupations.

#2 must be a joke.

Unfortunately, it is all too true. If logic was a tree she'd be a bush.

"not of the mega rich but of your average small-town rich couple. Say a couple has $10 million in the bank."

This is where her mental model is off kilter: an assumption that every small town has a rich couple with 10 million in the bank. That seems crazy. I suspect its her parents who made millions from computers, which is not normal wealth for a small town.

Secondly, she lives in Brooklyn. I bet there are enough transplants with rich parents there that she imagines being that wealthy is quite normal.

Thus she imagines a UBI would be easy.

I love that she keeps calling her parents income as 'unearned'. (I know in a tax sense it is) Maybe she should just put together $10 mil if it doesn't require any effort.

Good catch. Maybe if her mom went back to picking up plastic bottles they'd be entitled to some of it.

I don't think that girl was exposed to Buddenbrooks. She could write a libretto for it, but mess with people's minds via the casting.

She skipped the role of the second-generation, though. Which, it could be pointed out, would have created more wealth for a greater number of people to pursue their dreams, though not infinitely so ... and infinity obviously appeals to her.

Anyway, she and her wife look set to bring a fairly quick end to that unjust intergenerational transfer of wealth to one's progeny. No harm, no foul; and if she spends it all in Brooklyn first, she's probably supporting lots of dreams.

I kind of like these new confessional essays where the young bohemians admit to their unearned privilege; they seem overall so sanguine and consumerist - it's a nice change from the tortured artist genre.

"The cost of living continues to climb here in NYC, and I find I could use another $29/month. I know you don't want to eat into your capital, Mom, and plastic bottles are everywhere ..."

#2. This is actually a problem with the UBI to me.
"People will have complete freedom to pursue any career they want, regardless of how useless it is!"

Yeah, no. Price signals matter.

Which is the primary reason I think this kind of transfer should be done through some kind of EITC funded via a tax on wages and earnings.

Bumping someone an extra $1-2 per hour is far less distortive than just giving them a bunch of money. One of the key caveats should be that any EITC money should never be more than 1/2 of your total wages and there should be some evidence that the person is actually working the hours stated.

Thus a price signal might be weaker but it's still clearly there. Someone is willing to pay something for the work.

Comments for this post are closed