Saturday assorted links


#2 To roll an acceptable blunt to snoop's standards is no small feat. You know who's not complacent? That guy! Anyone who wants to argue with me about the power and advantage of market economies ability to diversify, I will now give them this example.

#6 It's obviously about going back in time to uncover the international cabal that sponsored Darwin's research and to uncover his true identity. Plot spoiler...Darwin was actually Greta Thurnberg who just so happens to be lizardian that can live forever! And she would've gotten away with it to, if it wasn't for Christopher Nolan!

Will Charles Murray advise on the production?

Re: your reference to lizards.

Do you listen to the NoAgenda podcast?

2. Snoop Dogg knows sports. I recently saw him on one of the sports talk shows, and he actually knows sports. No, I haven't any idea who Snoop Dogg is, but he was nice enough to bring gifts to the regulars on the show.

He hosted a Christmas cooking special with Martha Stewart last year. Also, I saw him hosting some game show at one point. Dude gets around. Lol to the haters.

3. Yes, resistance. Strange how resistance in America is defined as the party in control of the White House and the Senate, the Supreme Court, and most state governments. Resistance ain't what it used to be.

#3. Why isn't anyone talking about the facts that
a. Banerjee was married, to his childhood friend who also taught at MIT.
b. They had a young child.
c. Both of these facts held during much of the time he spent traveling alone in the field with his much younger female colleague.
d. Duflo was his graduate student at MIT.
e. He moved in with her immediately after the divorce.
f. The suicide of his son from the first marriage occurred shortly after Banerjee's first illegitimate child with Duflo.

No one will run a randomized control trial on Banerjee's apparent infidelity or Duflo's complicity to get causal identification here. The quality of research can be assessed independently from one's personal life. But it is unpleasant to see so many commentators conflate intelligent research with integrity.

If all this is even true, you are drawing some connections that are highly speculative. As far as I know my father did not have affairs or father children out of wedlock, but if he did, I would not kill myself as a result.

4. Nice.

. A number of commentators who favor increased taxation of the rich, including Sarin and Summers (2019a), Washington Post (2019), and Hemel (2019), persuasively argued that it would be better to pursue reform of the income tax and estate and gift taxes.

Estate tax: $3.5 million, not adjusted for inflation - rates 45% to 77%
Corporate tax at 21-25% dependent on CEO compensation (wtf?)
Income tax of 52%
Capital gains tax of 52%

$675,000, not adjusted for inflation - rate 55%
Wealth tax at 2% (over $50m for year 0)
Corporate tax at 41%
Income tax / capital gains raised to effective (not marginal) 40%+

Difference is Warren kicks in at such a low level, and this is in addition to her wealth tax and corporate tax. Also neither will be indexed to inflation. Bernie is basically also telling American households they will lose their house. I doubt many Americans can swing their mortgage with a 52% tax rate.

I wonder how many retirees can survive with a 52% capital gains / dividend income rate.

To add to this, remember all major Democrat candidates have promised to eliminate the filibuster and immediately double the size of the Supreme Court.

There might not be any check on power. A packed court could decide the Senate and the Electoral College are unconstitutional. And that the first amendment is subject to the House approving all communication between citizens.

Anyone who thinks the senate or the Supreme Court will act as a check hasn’t even bothered to read the Democrat proposals. And if they’re this brazen openly, imagine what they say behind closed doors.

If you are imagining everything you fear, you are imagining a far left Senate.

And if we have a united and far left Congress, well that's democracy.

We don’t need a far left senate, we need a total disregard of the constitution. Every single top Democrat nominee proposes packing the court.

When Warren expands the court to 21 members, she won’t need anything else.

Do you understand that Congress is the only one who can expand the Court?

Getting even a basic majority on something that radical would be hard. As it was in 1937.

It’s not radical to Democrats and you’re not understanding incentives.

Every top nominee has declared the filibuster dead. That means we are one election away from Democrats adding 1-10 states and 20 Senate seats.

This isn’t radical to the Democrat party. They have all vowed to pack the court. This is mainstream Democrat voter territory.

A vote for Democrat in 2020 is a vote for 21 Supreme Court members and adding 4-20 Senate members.

"That means we are one election away from Democrats adding 1-10 states and 20 Senate seats."


Good idea though. If you are going to keep Wyoming there really should be 20 more Californias.

Yes, the mainstream democrat position is to pack the Senate and the Supreme Court.

And eliminate the rule of law.

I’m glad you’re finally out in respect to your desire for dictatorship.

So ignorant. Killing gun owners and conservatives isn’t totalitarianism. It’s justice.

Warren doesn’t want a dictatorship , she wants a just world where a commenter on an economics blog is jailed if he doesn’t agree with the government.

Sounds like truth promotion.


You really are all about Stalinism.

Anon, I thought you were *that* troll on a mellow day.

Guess not, and subtly is not the other guy's thing.

So that's the first offer from each. Not the one that even passes the House. Certainly not the one that passes the Senate.

But I will say I'd rather have Congress adjusting income, estate and gift taxes than drafting a new wealth tax.

Why would the house reject any of this? Especially after DC and PR are given house seats. And Senate seats. And maybe others like Guam or Samoa.

Remember the promise of the major Democrat candidates is to eliminate the filibuster, add multiple new states, and pack the Supreme Court.

The first target is changing the rules of the game. The second target is any oppositional free dialogue. I’d imagine a 21 member Supreme Court vía Warren would outlaw any speech that isn’t approved by the Warren campaign. She’s already started with Facebook, and thats without power.

That’s who you support. Grow up and defend it.

I can't imagine that the entire Democratic House are in such secure socialist districts that they'd support such a thing. Or that they'd all cry YOLO, pass such a thing, and retire.

The parallel is probably Trump's Republican Congress of 2017-2019. They supported him, and got their tax bill. But they didn't go nuts. They didn't even repeal Obamacare.

They didn't even build the wall.

The median Democrat supports packing the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster.

They will see it happen. Remember a 21 member Warren Court can declare opposition unconstitutional.

It won’t matter after She makes the internet illegal.

That is a claim about polling.

Where is your link?

Did you not watch the debates?

You want Tweets. How depressing. The IQ of Democrats.

I got you.

I know you are just having fun, but for kids in the audience:

Debates are performances, not bind commitments for any participant, and only reflect what has to sound good in the moment.

It's the same reason Republicans said "repeal Obamacare" a million times on the campaign trail, and in debates

and then just didn't.

The official position of every one of the people that you tirelessly advocate supports both eliminating the electoral college and packing the Supreme Court.

That means you support it. The destruction of our Democracy and possible civil war.

I don't tirelessly support anyone. I just tirelessly oppose Trump, but obviously that is not the same thing.

Anybody but Trump is just that.

Maybe you guys can still get your act together with Weld!

Okay, that last very sadly is a joke at this point. The last exit was not taken.

You are on the side of 21 Supreme Court justices. 110-120 Senators. If the senate is allowed to even exist. Your side is the end of the bill of rights.

This isnt a fringe element. This is the Official stance of all leading nominees for President from the Democrats

Trump might be stupid but he’s not actively campaigning, with 50% of the country behind him, for dismantling the Supreme Court and the bill of rights.

Sorry, which troll is this now?

Thats a lot of pants-wetting.

Yes eliminating the Judicial branch of government and destroying half the bicameral legislature is pants wetting.

Packing the court and eliminating the Senate, and then adding Reps.

Not even hiding it anymore. They don’t want to win an election. They want the bill of rights gone.

Look for Borges' influence as we learn more details. A lot of Nolan's films are based on Borges stories and themes.

#4...The Wealth Tax will be the Follow the Assets and Investments Tax, whereby a small army of lawyers will find ways to define wealth so that it magically disappears. I believe a Corporate Tax is a bad idea as well. A Progressive Income Tax and an Inheritance Tax of 100% are my suggestions. On the Income Tax, you will only pay more taxes if you are demonstrably better off than the year before, and, if you are worse off, your taxes will go down. Similarly, taxes will automatically be reduced in an economic downturn, going up as the economy improves. I would have a top rate of 50%. The particulars of the taxes should be kept the same over time to produce regularity.

I'm laughing as I write this, because I know the arguments about taxes are really about shifting the tax burden around and around like a Tilt- A -Whirl, to the point where no one really knows what's going on. The Wealth Tax sounds good, even though it might not yield much in the way of paid taxes. But it doesn't matter, since both parties are going to spend well more than taxes will yield. Mitch McConnell couldn't find any water when Obama was President, only to open the tap to let loose a flood when Trump commanded him. These arguments are a sideshow, and any analysis really an exercise in personal tastes. You can't seriously talk about taxes without talking about how much you want to spend, something we don't do here.

If you want a 100% inheritance tax, then giving up citizenship will also require a 100% of assets exit tax.

Jesus Christ. Are we serfs?

Yes "we" are, but only the "we" in the bottom 50% of the income and wealth distributions

#4 I follow the line of argument given by James Buchanan and Robert Nozick about the Inheritance Tax. Jefferson was also for one, and Adam Smith was against unlimited inheritance. I realize that there are good arguments against it, and I'm proposing it as against other taxes, and I'm not imposing it. Get a grip. I have no idea if you're a serf, btw. Who are you?

No one with a disabled child could possibly favor a 100% inheritance tax.

Then we can create an exception. I'm not dogmatic about the particulars, I just felt it was easier to present it as 100% for purposes of this format, as something to think about. I'm very sympathetic to the issue since my father didn't have arms.

But then everyone will have a special pleading as to why they should be the exception. Look what's happened to school testing - everyone gets extra time. The student who's honest and doesn't claim a disability gets cheated by the system. How about an inheritance tax so low that nobody bothers to try to avoid it? 18%? The gain from putting all those estate lawyers (sorry Jim) and financial planners out of business alone is worth it.

As part of a mix, it's a possibility. I would like it higher for some of the reasons given by Buchanan and Nozick, but I prefer compromise if it gets things moving.

Larry gets it. And a cliff edge exception for disability, without a graduated quality, would tend to create injustices at the margin. Perhaps a person with sight issues qualifies, while a person with dyslexia does not. A person with profound autism does, while a person with very low IQ compared to their parent, but who falls short of autism, does not. And so on.

If you were to introduce increases in inheritance tax, you could make them progressive. The more wealth a recipient has prior to receiving inheritance, the higher the tax.

A tax that prevents the building of enormous wealth dynasties through inheritance, as successful child succeeds successful parent, makes sense. An anti-dynastic tax which specifically targets privately held wealth dynasties.

But a tax that insists that less economically dynamic child than their parents (every instance of reversion to the mean) must be thrust down to the same status us as if they never had parents at all, is effectively anti-human, profoundly against the impulses of individuals to care for their relatives and help their relatives, encouraging individuals only to spend their resources selfishly.

This itself has issues though - parents would be incentivized to inherit to the least capable child or relative (also an issue in the disability condition).

The bigger issue with inheritance tax though, is that it tends to be avoided by canny folk who give away their wealth to children over time, evading taxes on inheritance in favour of smaller capital gains taxes.

So it effectively becomes a tax on dying at an unscheduled time, heaping further financial misery on those who are unlucky to have a parent or loved one die at an unscheduled time.

Any reform to inheritance tax should seek to correct this injustice, and the only way to do that is to bring these into tax parity.

Yes, that's a possibility.

"Espionage, time travel, and evolution"

sounds like someone watched every episode of LOST and thinks he can do better.

typically you get 2 out of the 3 at most - Gene Wolfe and H G Wells for evolution and time travel, Philip Dick and Professor Kinbote for espionage and time travel, Anthony Burgess and H. Rider Haggard for espionage and evolution ---- but LOST and TENET apparently had it all

#2 badly needed a “Those new service sector jobs” title :-)

#3: That was wordy and meandering, but had a few interesting factoids. The connection to Bangladesh was one that I was not aware of, I wish the author had more clearly and completely stated how important this connection might be to the "Bengal renaissance" that he cites.

Abhijit Banerjee was born and raised in India but his father was a Hindu Bengali. Amartya Sen is technically from India, but the state of West Bengal. Is that a coincidence, or is there something about Bengal culture and economics?

Comments for this post are closed