3 ms·
I am not that surprised. He kept going on and on about taxing "tech" to fund UBI. And it would work out and it would be like Alaska with their oil fund thing.
by bena 5y ago
I am not that surprised.
He kept going on and on about taxing "tech" to fund UBI. And it would work out and it would be like Alaska with their oil fund thing.
But, when you get down to it, what is "tech"? How is it different from just anything? We use the word "tech" to essentially describe any business that is based primarily on software. Where software is a major focus.
Because, like chemicals, technology is literally everything. The wheel is technology. A car is technology. "Tech" isn't an industry, it's a catch-all term for businesses we don't want to define.
So how do you define Google as "tech" in a way that doesn't include other advertising companies or other companies that run their business with software (which is pretty much all of them now)?
So with that and everything else I've learned about him, he really seemed like someone who was very articulate, but ultimately empty.
His big thing was "MATH" but what he really needed was "ENGLISH".
- hakfoo 5y agoDevil's advocate, but starting with a broad based "who to tax" concept allows for more room to horse trade. If he said front and centre "I want to personally dangle Jeff Bezos and Sergei Brin over the edge of a tall building and shake until their wallets fall out" that gives one clear target to fight over. Starting with an amorphous blob target lets everyone involved say "Oh, we'll exclude X, Y, and Z...." and feel like they won something, while still getting what you really wanted in the end. It's why they always talk about the budget proposals as "$3.5 trillion" or "$1.8 trillion" without anyone ever saying "my real red-line is the $12k of subsidies to the local dirt farmers."
- bena 5y agoYes, and the real trick is to say "Jeff Bezos" without explicitly naming him. Because a law that calls out a specific person has a built-in expiration date.