5 ms·

> I just wish the guy in charge could apply the same systematic thinking to his approach to politics So much this, my god... And politics aside, everything Elo

by epgui 4y ago

> I just wish the guy in charge could apply the same systematic thinking to his approach to politics So much this, my god... And politics aside, everything Elon says about public health seems to be pretty dumb too. It's a good reminder that you can be extremely brilliant in your field but still no better than an average schmuck on other topics. This is why we don't have a choice but to specialize and why we defer to expertise. In the 1600s you could be on top of all science-- that's simply not even remotely possible any longer for any individual.

fundad 4y ago
Is he trying to sound smart or simply promote anti-tax candidates so he keeps more of his money?
- epgui 4y ago
  I'm torn on this question. I think I could argue both sides ad nauseam, so I'll just say that I don't know what he thinks.
  - fundad 4y ago
    Some columnists can’t figure him out either, but his motives are clear, I’m going by not subtle actions. He promotes GOP candidates and favors right wing journalists. He engages in QAanon conspiracies on his network. He’s one of many right wing operators who started or bought social media sites. Donating the personal maximum to both parties is nothing compared to what is essentially $44B in-kind campaign contribution.
- tenpies 4y ago
  Isn't it too late for that given the exorbitant tax bill he already paid? [1] Short of Democrats passing one of those economy-destroying net wealth taxes, or a truly-absurd unrealized capital gains tax; the damage is done for Musk. Granted, taxes of this nature being what they are, he will likely be able to recover some of that amount in future years. --- [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-o...
  - LynxInLA 4y ago
    In your mind, would it be "truly absurd" to redefine what counts as a realized capital gain? [1] In my mind, if you take a loan against your equity, you are realizing the current market value. This would be difficult to implement (especially with private companies and options), but it would close a big gap in the tax system that is primarily used for tax avoidance. [2] --- [1] I completely agree that taxing unrealized gains in the current system would be a terrible idea. [2] The main non-tax reasons I can think of are retaining voting power and cashing out on pre-ipo stock.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Are loans against equity using the full market value of the equity as the value of collateral? I would find that surprising.
      - LynxInLA 4y ago
        I doubt it, but why wouldn't it be close to market value for public companies? I don't know how it works for the ultra-wealthy, but regular investors can draw a loan against their deposits with securities-based lines of credit (SBLOCs). SBLOCs have a limit smaller than the total value of your portfolio, but your collateral is still the current securities. I'm mainly spitballing here, but I agree it would be extremely difficult to implement fairly. I just think it is worth investigating.
        epgui 4y ago
        > I doubt it, but why wouldn't it be close to market value for public companies? If it's a large amount of shares, there should still be a liquidity discount (not exactly a DLOM, but something like that, because when you try to sell a large amount quickly, you can't get your order filled at the market rates without depressing the market rates). Plus, as we have just discussed, you can presume that even if the shares are fully liquid, part of the gains (if there are gains) will be taxed, and that's money that might not be available to pay off the creditor. On top of that, I'd wager that lenders would subtract an additional safety margin for volatility/risk. I have absolutely no idea, and please don't quote me on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if creditors applied a ratio of at least 1:2. --- Edit: this random website I stumbled upon on the first page of Google search results for the query "using share equity as collateral" (no idea how reliable or representative this is) seems to indicate that a ratio of 1:2 (they say "50%") is applied. They also say that you could expect to pay about 1% in interest annually. https://www.ennessglobal.com/portfolio-finance/securities-backed-lending https://www.ennessglobal.com/portfolio-finance/securities-ba... They also mention that there may be qualitative factors that come into play: The key points a lender will look at are: - The value of your securities - What the security is made up of - The liquidity of the security - If the security is listed, which exchange it is listed on - How concentrated the shares are - The industry or field the company trades in - The management team
jupp0r 4y ago
Even today, you don't have to be an expert all low level details to have a non idiotic opinion on COVID. A little kindness, compassion and common sense is sufficient.
- epgui 4y ago
  I broadly agree, but careful because IMO "common sense" is very much a trap-concept. It's how we usually convince ourselves that our preconceived ideas are right. If science teaches us anything, it's to be very wary of that. Elon is right about one thing: the value of reasoning by first principles! :)
  - godelski 4y ago
    > IMO "common sense" is very much a trap-concept. It's how we usually convince ourselves that our preconceived ideas are right. To add more to this, I would argue that our tendency to oversimplify subjects is a large part of many of the issues we face today. Important to remember that first principle reasoning is not the same as first order thinking. Most of the problems we face today are deceptively complex (appear simple on the surface but aren't) and first order approximations aren't good enough and can actually lead you away from a solution rather than towards. First principle thinking does require you to reevaluate your assumptions as well as constantly having serious doubt (challenging your own ideas).
  - figassis 4y ago
    To me, common sense should always be derived from first principles, and there should be legally required that every concept/argument be also decomposable and provable from first principles. Things/concepts should only become common sense after being battle tested socially for 1+ generations. Your parents teach you common sense and there is a paper trail to that common sense's origin. You don't get to create new "common sense" without doing the hard work.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Congratulations on your novel definition of "common sense", however if it takes a generation of socially battle testing a thing to become common sense, you've excluded e.g. "people have smart phones".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 4y ago
> This is why we don't have a choice but to specialize and why we defer to expertise. Looks like you were living under a rock over the past 3 years. COVID showed how useless or harmful experts actually are.
zamalek 4y ago
Intelligence and stupidity are orthogonal. Musk is the brightest idiot there is.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and: there must be something like a morality intelligence, akin to IQ and EQ (emotional intelligence).
camillomiller 4y ago
If anything the opposite is true. Being a true generalist is the antidote to specialists who have done so well in a field that they believe they can command other (usually soft skill) domains they see as inferior.
- epgui 4y ago
  Good luck with that! I think the only way to honestly hold this opinion is to have no idea how mind-bogglingly immense current scientific knowledge is (nevermind the scope of everything we don't know and the magnitude of the task of figuring out where the boundary between the two is).
version_five 4y ago
It's amazing to me that anyone can still hold a "defer to experts" opinion after all the hysteria is over. It only works in apolitical situations, otherwise "experts" are just partisan mouthpieces.
unixhero 4y ago
schmuck? What is that? A Jewish word?

by epgui 4y ago

fundad 4y ago

Is he trying to sound smart or simply promote anti-tax candidates so he keeps more of his money?

epgui 4y ago
I'm torn on this question. I think I could argue both sides ad nauseam, so I'll just say that I don't know what he thinks.
- fundad 4y ago
  Some columnists can’t figure him out either, but his motives are clear, I’m going by not subtle actions. He promotes GOP candidates and favors right wing journalists. He engages in QAanon conspiracies on his network. He’s one of many right wing operators who started or bought social media sites. Donating the personal maximum to both parties is nothing compared to what is essentially $44B in-kind campaign contribution.
tenpies 4y ago
Isn't it too late for that given the exorbitant tax bill he already paid? [1] Short of Democrats passing one of those economy-destroying net wealth taxes, or a truly-absurd unrealized capital gains tax; the damage is done for Musk. Granted, taxes of this nature being what they are, he will likely be able to recover some of that amount in future years. --- [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-o...
- LynxInLA 4y ago
  In your mind, would it be "truly absurd" to redefine what counts as a realized capital gain? [1] In my mind, if you take a loan against your equity, you are realizing the current market value. This would be difficult to implement (especially with private companies and options), but it would close a big gap in the tax system that is primarily used for tax avoidance. [2] --- [1] I completely agree that taxing unrealized gains in the current system would be a terrible idea. [2] The main non-tax reasons I can think of are retaining voting power and cashing out on pre-ipo stock.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Are loans against equity using the full market value of the equity as the value of collateral? I would find that surprising.
    - LynxInLA 4y ago
      I doubt it, but why wouldn't it be close to market value for public companies? I don't know how it works for the ultra-wealthy, but regular investors can draw a loan against their deposits with securities-based lines of credit (SBLOCs). SBLOCs have a limit smaller than the total value of your portfolio, but your collateral is still the current securities. I'm mainly spitballing here, but I agree it would be extremely difficult to implement fairly. I just think it is worth investigating.
      - epgui 4y ago
        > I doubt it, but why wouldn't it be close to market value for public companies? If it's a large amount of shares, there should still be a liquidity discount (not exactly a DLOM, but something like that, because when you try to sell a large amount quickly, you can't get your order filled at the market rates without depressing the market rates). Plus, as we have just discussed, you can presume that even if the shares are fully liquid, part of the gains (if there are gains) will be taxed, and that's money that might not be available to pay off the creditor. On top of that, I'd wager that lenders would subtract an additional safety margin for volatility/risk. I have absolutely no idea, and please don't quote me on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if creditors applied a ratio of at least 1:2. --- Edit: this random website I stumbled upon on the first page of Google search results for the query "using share equity as collateral" (no idea how reliable or representative this is) seems to indicate that a ratio of 1:2 (they say "50%") is applied. They also say that you could expect to pay about 1% in interest annually. https://www.ennessglobal.com/portfolio-finance/securities-backed-lending https://www.ennessglobal.com/portfolio-finance/securities-ba... They also mention that there may be qualitative factors that come into play: The key points a lender will look at are: - The value of your securities - What the security is made up of - The liquidity of the security - If the security is listed, which exchange it is listed on - How concentrated the shares are - The industry or field the company trades in - The management team

jupp0r 4y ago

Even today, you don't have to be an expert all low level details to have a non idiotic opinion on COVID. A little kindness, compassion and common sense is sufficient.

epgui 4y ago
I broadly agree, but careful because IMO "common sense" is very much a trap-concept. It's how we usually convince ourselves that our preconceived ideas are right. If science teaches us anything, it's to be very wary of that. Elon is right about one thing: the value of reasoning by first principles! :)
- godelski 4y ago
  > IMO "common sense" is very much a trap-concept. It's how we usually convince ourselves that our preconceived ideas are right. To add more to this, I would argue that our tendency to oversimplify subjects is a large part of many of the issues we face today. Important to remember that first principle reasoning is not the same as first order thinking. Most of the problems we face today are deceptively complex (appear simple on the surface but aren't) and first order approximations aren't good enough and can actually lead you away from a solution rather than towards. First principle thinking does require you to reevaluate your assumptions as well as constantly having serious doubt (challenging your own ideas).
- figassis 4y ago
  To me, common sense should always be derived from first principles, and there should be legally required that every concept/argument be also decomposable and provable from first principles. Things/concepts should only become common sense after being battle tested socially for 1+ generations. Your parents teach you common sense and there is a paper trail to that common sense's origin. You don't get to create new "common sense" without doing the hard work.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Congratulations on your novel definition of "common sense", however if it takes a generation of socially battle testing a thing to become common sense, you've excluded e.g. "people have smart phones".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ekianjo 4y ago

> This is why we don't have a choice but to specialize and why we defer to expertise. Looks like you were living under a rock over the past 3 years. COVID showed how useless or harmful experts actually are.

zamalek 4y ago

Intelligence and stupidity are orthogonal. Musk is the brightest idiot there is.

specialist 4y ago
Yes and: there must be something like a morality intelligence, akin to IQ and EQ (emotional intelligence).

camillomiller 4y ago

If anything the opposite is true. Being a true generalist is the antidote to specialists who have done so well in a field that they believe they can command other (usually soft skill) domains they see as inferior.

epgui 4y ago
Good luck with that! I think the only way to honestly hold this opinion is to have no idea how mind-bogglingly immense current scientific knowledge is (nevermind the scope of everything we don't know and the magnitude of the task of figuring out where the boundary between the two is).

version_five 4y ago

It's amazing to me that anyone can still hold a "defer to experts" opinion after all the hysteria is over. It only works in apolitical situations, otherwise "experts" are just partisan mouthpieces.

unixhero 4y ago

schmuck? What is that? A Jewish word?