4 ms·

Maybe it's a little too much to ask, but are why are you "not saying any of this is right or good". Part of my brain wishes that law would actually mean justic

by wiz21c 6y ago

Maybe it's a little too much to ask, but are why are you "not saying any of this is right or good". Part of my brain wishes that law would actually mean justice but somehow, if I trust only what I know, I cleary cannot judge, as you do, if finance engineering is good or bad. I'd like to know what prevents you to choose if it's good or right (as person who have worked inside the business) thx

gnicholas 6y ago
I do have opinions about various tax provisions that I know well. But the topics I mentioned in my prior comment were not about a specific tax provision, or even tax policy generally. I was just stating the facts of life. It will always be the case that big companies will find it efficient to engage in certain revenue-producing activities that smaller companies/individuals will not. Just as I don't have feelings about laws of physics, I don't have any feelings about economies of scale. Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. But if you try to come up with a definition about what 'lobbying' is, and how you might try to restrict it, you realize that it is very difficult to do so without being underinclusive or overinclusive (or both!). So while I find the idea distasteful, I don't have any answers on how to 'fix' it.
- sdoering 6y ago
  Thanks. What I love about the comments you make is twofold: - You clearly differentiate between opinion, observation and fact. - You don't try to find an easy answer. Thanks. Comments like these make me come back and read on HN.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    My hobby [1] is helping people think clearly about media bias and filter bubbles, so I'm glad to hear that my comments come across as rational and balanced! 1: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
    - animal_spirits 6y ago
      This is an interesting concept. I think this is a tool that I would use, however I don't have an iPhone and I don't use Chrome. Are there plans to release this as a Firefox addon?
- yeahNo00 6y ago
  So you don’t have any emotional opinions on the work of others that has real effect on your life? Physicists can be wrong. Economists can be wrong. At some point technical nonsense becomes “imperfect people choosing.” A fix might simply be change tax laws? Kind of like how the billionaires changed them to be less distributed. But you don’t have feelings enough about economics being purposely wielded at scale to manipulate; let’s hope you’re still one of the privileged enough to be indifferent and comfortable in the future. popcorn Real-time meltdown of Pax Americana is pretty metal.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    I don't think the poster was saying any of this. They were simply stating that the post was informational and that they weren't offering any commentary on the situation, just giving facts. I mean, sure a physicist can be wrong, but if they are giving facts as are currently accepted by the community or even as they know them, it isn't an emotional statement of whether they agree. It is just that: Facts as we know them, to the best of our ability and not giving the commentary with it.
  - csallen 6y ago
    He said "laws of physics" not "physicists." You're deliberately misreading his point, which undermines whatever point you're trying to make.
  - equivocating000 6y ago
    Laws of physics are discovered by human experiment. Economics are defined by humans. They’re taught to each other by humans. It’s all wrapped in how we treat each other at scale. Separating the two is impossible except as a semantics game.
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      They're separable by experimental verification. The laws of physics are multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than the laws of economics, and the physicists are certain that at least one of their models is wrong. Try getting an admission like that out of an economist!
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  Lobbying is actually not hard to stop at all. It msy be under our current structure, but its not hard to stop Here are 3 rules that would stop lobbying overnight. 1- Make house of reps sole body to set tax law at federal lvl 2- tie reps in house to very specific, low pop counts. For ex, 1 rep district = 25,000. This would mean house would become gigantic. 3- randomize election outcomes. Swap winner of city treasurer with senate winner. Swap rep seat with state assemblyman. Every seat should have a high random chance of being swapped. If winner does not like position. We should even do this with presidency. This solves federal level lobbying by taking (1) power into a (2) decentralized body and also (3) inserting downside for lobbyist.
- refurb 6y ago
  Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. Are people aware what everyday lobbying is in it's most basic form? It's companies engaging their elected representatives on policy issues relevant to them. So when the Obamacare bill was being written, the AMA (representing physicians) lobbied Congress to make sure their views were heard. Completely legitimate. Another example might be a crime bill where the ACLU lobbies Congress. Or the EFF lobbies Congress. And the lobbying dollars that are spent aren't bundles of cash given to Congresspersons, it's dollar spent on lobby firms that have armies of experts who know how Congress works, who to talk to and how to craft an argument that resonates. That doesn't come cheap. Now up to this point nothing illegal has happened. You could argue it's unfair that businesses (well, more accurately organizations) have better access to Congress than individual voters, but groups will always have more power than individuals (since they represent more voters). There is nothing to stop a group of voters from forming an organization to lobby Congress on a specific issue. Again, that's what the ACLU and EFF do. It seems like most people see "the AMA spent $10M on lobbying last year" and picture lobbyists passing bags of cash to Congress. No, that's illegal and has been for a very long time.
  - wiz21c 6y ago
    yeah sure. But like everything, there's a point at which it makes people nervous. Eating sugar up to the point it's too much.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Law is the UI for political power, and not inherently for justice. If you want justice, you have to apply political leverage to steer power in its direction. Law is also the UI for political self-interest. Unfortunately the same leverage principle applies. Which is why it's almost impossible to get real justice - including tax justice - in a plutocracy. The scales are tilted too heavily in the opposite direction. The answer is to balance plutocracy with effective political organisation, but that's an incredibly hard problem to solve at all, never mind peacefully.
simonh 6y ago
It the OP, but there’s a difference between holding a moral opinion and stating that opinion in a discussion. OP may simply have not wanted to obscure information presented from an insider perspective with personal opinion, in an attempt to stay objective. Further, financial engineering by itself is morally neutral. It can create abuses sure, but it can also reduce unnecessary costs so that a company can employ more people, offer goods and services to customers at lower prices, etc. Tax is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle and it can’t always easily be disentangled from other issues. I’m reminded of the saying about porn, you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. There are plenty of publicly discussed cases of pretty clear and egregious tax evasion, but not all efforts to limit tax liability are abuses. Some of them are responses to deliberate incentives put into the tax system to encourage specific behaviour.
ArnoVW 6y ago
Because he wants to give his technical expertise, and does not want to enter into a political debate about the way we organise society. If you read between the lines, you can see that he understands that people have reservations (and probably he has chosen). He just chooses to explicitly not make a statement about it, and keep this a technical discussion. In todays highly politicised society, this is (in my opinion) a sensible thing to do.

by wiz21c 6y ago

gnicholas 6y ago

I do have opinions about various tax provisions that I know well. But the topics I mentioned in my prior comment were not about a specific tax provision, or even tax policy generally. I was just stating the facts of life. It will always be the case that big companies will find it efficient to engage in certain revenue-producing activities that smaller companies/individuals will not. Just as I don't have feelings about laws of physics, I don't have any feelings about economies of scale. Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. But if you try to come up with a definition about what 'lobbying' is, and how you might try to restrict it, you realize that it is very difficult to do so without being underinclusive or overinclusive (or both!). So while I find the idea distasteful, I don't have any answers on how to 'fix' it.

sdoering 6y ago
Thanks. What I love about the comments you make is twofold: - You clearly differentiate between opinion, observation and fact. - You don't try to find an easy answer. Thanks. Comments like these make me come back and read on HN.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  My hobby [1] is helping people think clearly about media bias and filter bubbles, so I'm glad to hear that my comments come across as rational and balanced! 1: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
  - animal_spirits 6y ago
    This is an interesting concept. I think this is a tool that I would use, however I don't have an iPhone and I don't use Chrome. Are there plans to release this as a Firefox addon?
yeahNo00 6y ago
So you don’t have any emotional opinions on the work of others that has real effect on your life? Physicists can be wrong. Economists can be wrong. At some point technical nonsense becomes “imperfect people choosing.” A fix might simply be change tax laws? Kind of like how the billionaires changed them to be less distributed. But you don’t have feelings enough about economics being purposely wielded at scale to manipulate; let’s hope you’re still one of the privileged enough to be indifferent and comfortable in the future. popcorn Real-time meltdown of Pax Americana is pretty metal.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  I don't think the poster was saying any of this. They were simply stating that the post was informational and that they weren't offering any commentary on the situation, just giving facts. I mean, sure a physicist can be wrong, but if they are giving facts as are currently accepted by the community or even as they know them, it isn't an emotional statement of whether they agree. It is just that: Facts as we know them, to the best of our ability and not giving the commentary with it.
- csallen 6y ago
  He said "laws of physics" not "physicists." You're deliberately misreading his point, which undermines whatever point you're trying to make.
- equivocating000 6y ago
  Laws of physics are discovered by human experiment. Economics are defined by humans. They’re taught to each other by humans. It’s all wrapped in how we treat each other at scale. Separating the two is impossible except as a semantics game.
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    They're separable by experimental verification. The laws of physics are multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than the laws of economics, and the physicists are certain that at least one of their models is wrong. Try getting an admission like that out of an economist!
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
Lobbying is actually not hard to stop at all. It msy be under our current structure, but its not hard to stop Here are 3 rules that would stop lobbying overnight. 1- Make house of reps sole body to set tax law at federal lvl 2- tie reps in house to very specific, low pop counts. For ex, 1 rep district = 25,000. This would mean house would become gigantic. 3- randomize election outcomes. Swap winner of city treasurer with senate winner. Swap rep seat with state assemblyman. Every seat should have a high random chance of being swapped. If winner does not like position. We should even do this with presidency. This solves federal level lobbying by taking (1) power into a (2) decentralized body and also (3) inserting downside for lobbyist.
refurb 6y ago
Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. Are people aware what everyday lobbying is in it's most basic form? It's companies engaging their elected representatives on policy issues relevant to them. So when the Obamacare bill was being written, the AMA (representing physicians) lobbied Congress to make sure their views were heard. Completely legitimate. Another example might be a crime bill where the ACLU lobbies Congress. Or the EFF lobbies Congress. And the lobbying dollars that are spent aren't bundles of cash given to Congresspersons, it's dollar spent on lobby firms that have armies of experts who know how Congress works, who to talk to and how to craft an argument that resonates. That doesn't come cheap. Now up to this point nothing illegal has happened. You could argue it's unfair that businesses (well, more accurately organizations) have better access to Congress than individual voters, but groups will always have more power than individuals (since they represent more voters). There is nothing to stop a group of voters from forming an organization to lobby Congress on a specific issue. Again, that's what the ACLU and EFF do. It seems like most people see "the AMA spent $10M on lobbying last year" and picture lobbyists passing bags of cash to Congress. No, that's illegal and has been for a very long time.
- wiz21c 6y ago
  yeah sure. But like everything, there's a point at which it makes people nervous. Eating sugar up to the point it's too much.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Law is the UI for political power, and not inherently for justice. If you want justice, you have to apply political leverage to steer power in its direction. Law is also the UI for political self-interest. Unfortunately the same leverage principle applies. Which is why it's almost impossible to get real justice - including tax justice - in a plutocracy. The scales are tilted too heavily in the opposite direction. The answer is to balance plutocracy with effective political organisation, but that's an incredibly hard problem to solve at all, never mind peacefully.

simonh 6y ago

It the OP, but there’s a difference between holding a moral opinion and stating that opinion in a discussion. OP may simply have not wanted to obscure information presented from an insider perspective with personal opinion, in an attempt to stay objective. Further, financial engineering by itself is morally neutral. It can create abuses sure, but it can also reduce unnecessary costs so that a company can employ more people, offer goods and services to customers at lower prices, etc. Tax is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle and it can’t always easily be disentangled from other issues. I’m reminded of the saying about porn, you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. There are plenty of publicly discussed cases of pretty clear and egregious tax evasion, but not all efforts to limit tax liability are abuses. Some of them are responses to deliberate incentives put into the tax system to encourage specific behaviour.

ArnoVW 6y ago

Because he wants to give his technical expertise, and does not want to enter into a political debate about the way we organise society. If you read between the lines, you can see that he understands that people have reservations (and probably he has chosen). He just chooses to explicitly not make a statement about it, and keep this a technical discussion. In todays highly politicised society, this is (in my opinion) a sensible thing to do.