4 ms·

> OpenAI's losses might actually be attractive to certain investors from a tax perspective. OpenAI is anyways seeking Govt Bailout for "National Security" reas

by lenkite 10mo ago

> OpenAI's losses might actually be attractive to certain investors from a tax perspective. OpenAI is anyways seeking Govt Bailout for "National Security" reasons. Wow, I earlier scoffed at "Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses", but this appears to now be Standard Operating Procedure in the U.S. https://www.citizen.org/news/openais-request-for-massive-government-bailout-package-is-pure-corporate-entitlement/ https://www.citizen.org/news/openais-request-for-massive-gov... So the U.S. Taxpayer will effectively pay for it. And not just the U.S. Taxpayer - due to USD reserve currency status, increasing U.S. debt is effectively shared by the world. Make billionaires richer, make the middle class poor. Make the poor destitute. Make the destitute dead. (All USAID cuts)

alex43578 10mo ago
There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare. It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test, and it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away.
- Ar-Curunir 10mo ago
  The modern welfare state is the compromise reached by capitalist democracies to stave off communist revolutions. If you’re going to kill of the welfare part, be ready for the uprising part.
  - nosianu 10mo ago
    That's where the surveillance and the militarized police force(s) come in. Especially the former now has reached extraordinary levels, given that almost all communication now is easily trackable. Compare that to when we still had revolutions, where it was very hard for government to know what is going on, and to find individuals without a huge effort. I think revolutions have become next to impossible, unless it is lead by significant parts of the elite that controls at least part of the apparatus. That's not even counting the far more sophisticated propaganda methods, so that many of the affected people won't even begin to target the actual culprits but are lead to chase shadows, or one another.
    - victorbjorklund 10mo ago
      We still have revolutions because if enough people go out on the street it doesn’t matter how good your surveillance state is. You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin even with 5 people because if they grow there comes a point it can’t be stopped with violence.
      - nosianu 10mo ago
        See Arab spring. It does not matter how many people go out in the street, unless the elites voluntarily give up control, as happened in East Germany (which I experienced). The only thing that matters is if influential parts of the elites want a change too. > You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. Unnecessary. > That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin Especially Russia's issue is that lots of the elites want change too. But you also underestimate that what the population also does not want is a repeat of 1990s chaos, and Russian weakness.
    - gosub100 10mo ago
      You forgot gun control. Is it really a coincidence that the highest concentrations of rich people seem to be the places where citizens have the fewest rights to own guns?
      - sigwinch 10mo ago
        If you’re comparing Dubai and Abu Dhabi with New York City, there’s larger variation than, say, China and Brazil.
      - nosianu 10mo ago
        Ridiculous "argument". You and your puny gun against organized forces, especially the military - laughable! The only one your privately owned guns threaten are other citizens.
        gosub100 10mo ago
- nielsbot 10mo ago
  > It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test What about someone who works and still can’t afford enough housing/food? > shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away. I mean where’s the profit in that, am i right?
  - alex43578 10mo ago
    > What about someone who works and still can’t afford enough housing/food? Food stamps? The original comment is addressing those not working or studying, or staying off drugs. >I mean where’s the profit in that, am i right? We’re $38 trillion dollars in debt. Digging a deeper whole isn’t a sound decision.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  Hello, I'm British by birth. That's pretty close to the story other Brits give themselves for why losing the empire was actually a good thing for the UK.
  - marbro 10mo ago
    [dead]
- epolanski 10mo ago
  > It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test This would make sense if every person was given similar opportunities, like providing quality education to all of our youngest and making higher education a mission rather than a business as a starter. As a society we move at the speed of the weakest among us, we only move forward when we start lifting and helping the weakest and most vulnerable. You also need to realize that not doing that work is also cause for other taxpayer money to be spent elsewhere, such as spending an average of 37k $ per incarcerated person, and that ignores all the damage that criminal might've caused, all the additional police staffing and personal security that is needed to be spent outside prisons, etc. Those are complex systems, are you sure it wouldn't be better to spend the same gargantuan amount of money that's spent on millions of inmates and fighting crime into fighting the causes that make many fall into that? Again, those are complex, but closed systems and the argument of "we shouldn't spend on X" often ignores the cost of not spending on X.
  - c1sc0 10mo ago
    No that’s the system working as intended: there’s good private money to be made on incarcerating the poor and uneducated!
  - alex43578 10mo ago
    The US already spends 38% more than the OECD average on education per student, just lagging Luxembourg, Austria, Norway, etc - if you’re a student in America, you have access to plenty of resources. You’re right that these are complex systems, and just pouring more tax dollars and more debt into them isn’t working. Portions of our society need to value education, value contributing to society instead of taking, and reject criminality - but those changes require more than blind spending.
    - hvb2 10mo ago
      Let me phrase it this way for you. The best universities are in the US for a lot of things. But they don't scale. In another way, the top talent gets Ferraris for their tuition, the rest gets a bike. In a lot of European countries everyone can get the Toyota Camry of education, decent but not world class. That does scale though. Spending isn't everything, it's how you apply that spending.
- lo_zamoyski 10mo ago
  As intrinsically social animals, we have general obligations toward other people that precede our consent. How these play out in practice will be determined by the limitations and conditions of the situation. But in general, such obligations radiate outward based on proximity of relation. Our first obligations are toward our immediate families. As the human race is essentially a large extended family, the obligations dissipate the further out we go. We do have a general obligation to help those in need, but this obligation is prioritized. In classical texts, this is called the ordo amoris or "order of love" (in the older, more technically accurate terminology, order of charity, where "charity" - from caritas - means willing the good of the other). Now, to address your comment specifically... > There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare. For example? Whatever the benefits of LLMs, I find this relative exuberance unreasonable. > It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, In someone able-bodied and of sound mind refuses to work, then we don't have an obligation to support someone like that. This is true. In fact, it would be uncharitable to enable their laziness, because it harms the character and virtue of that person. Of course, in practice, if someone you have determined is able to work is found starving and in danger of death, for example, then it is unlikely they are merely lazy. Would a man of sound mind allow himself to starve? The manner in which we deal with such cases is a prudential matter, not a matter or principle. We need to determine how best to satisfy the principle in the given circumstances, and there is room for debate here. > it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away. If there is a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world, for example, then there is a general obligation of the entire world to help those affected. How that happens, how that is coordinate, is a matter of prudence and implementation detail, as it were. Naturally, several factors enter the equation (proximity, wealth, etc).
parineum 10mo ago
> Make billionaires richer, make the middle class poor. Make the poor destitute. Make the destitute dead. (All USAID cuts) How do you square this thought with the actual rate of poverty being on a steady downward trend while billionaires do their things?
- lenkite 10mo ago
  Kindly use the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) - which accounts for government benefits (e.g., tax credits, SNAP), taxes, and expenses like medical costs. This does not show your "steady downward trend", but has considerably fluctuated over the last few years. It is an increase to 12.9% in 2024, compared to 7.1% in 2020-21. Will need to wait till end of 2026 for the 2025 computation.
  - parineum 10mo ago
    For the world?
    - lenkite 10mo ago
      Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020–2030 set to be a lost decade - World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ec3d46c25a822d6d248e86d17179ea4e-0090012024/original/Poverty-and-Inequality-Quarterly-Update-3PR-Edition.pdf https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ec3d46c25a822d6d248e86d... Please note that if you exclude China, the trend of poverty reduction is laughable.
      - parineum 10mo ago
        > Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020–2030 set to be a lost decade - World Bank. "Slowed to a near standstill" means it's still moving in the right direction. There may have been some global event in the 2020s that maybe had a bit of an impact on the global economy. > Please note that if you exclude China, the trend of poverty reduction is laughable. If you exclude the area of the world that used to be extremely poor but has benefitted massively from the wealth generated by creating products for the billionaires abroad, why would you exclude that?

by lenkite 10mo ago

alex43578 10mo ago

There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare. It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test, and it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away.

Ar-Curunir 10mo ago
The modern welfare state is the compromise reached by capitalist democracies to stave off communist revolutions. If you’re going to kill of the welfare part, be ready for the uprising part.
- nosianu 10mo ago
  That's where the surveillance and the militarized police force(s) come in. Especially the former now has reached extraordinary levels, given that almost all communication now is easily trackable. Compare that to when we still had revolutions, where it was very hard for government to know what is going on, and to find individuals without a huge effort. I think revolutions have become next to impossible, unless it is lead by significant parts of the elite that controls at least part of the apparatus. That's not even counting the far more sophisticated propaganda methods, so that many of the affected people won't even begin to target the actual culprits but are lead to chase shadows, or one another.
  - victorbjorklund 10mo ago
    We still have revolutions because if enough people go out on the street it doesn’t matter how good your surveillance state is. You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin even with 5 people because if they grow there comes a point it can’t be stopped with violence.
    - nosianu 10mo ago
      See Arab spring. It does not matter how many people go out in the street, unless the elites voluntarily give up control, as happened in East Germany (which I experienced). The only thing that matters is if influential parts of the elites want a change too. > You can’t kill/arrest 25% of your population. Unnecessary. > That is why Russia/China/etc are so scared to let any protests begin Especially Russia's issue is that lots of the elites want change too. But you also underestimate that what the population also does not want is a repeat of 1990s chaos, and Russian weakness.
  - gosub100 10mo ago
    You forgot gun control. Is it really a coincidence that the highest concentrations of rich people seem to be the places where citizens have the fewest rights to own guns?
    - sigwinch 10mo ago
      If you’re comparing Dubai and Abu Dhabi with New York City, there’s larger variation than, say, China and Brazil.
    - nosianu 10mo ago
      Ridiculous "argument". You and your puny gun against organized forces, especially the military - laughable! The only one your privately owned guns threaten are other citizens.
      - gosub100 10mo ago
nielsbot 10mo ago
> It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test What about someone who works and still can’t afford enough housing/food? > shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away. I mean where’s the profit in that, am i right?
- alex43578 10mo ago
  > What about someone who works and still can’t afford enough housing/food? Food stamps? The original comment is addressing those not working or studying, or staying off drugs. >I mean where’s the profit in that, am i right? We’re $38 trillion dollars in debt. Digging a deeper whole isn’t a sound decision.
ben_w 10mo ago
Hello, I'm British by birth. That's pretty close to the story other Brits give themselves for why losing the empire was actually a good thing for the UK.
- marbro 10mo ago
  [dead]
epolanski 10mo ago
> It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, study, or pass a drug test This would make sense if every person was given similar opportunities, like providing quality education to all of our youngest and making higher education a mission rather than a business as a starter. As a society we move at the speed of the weakest among us, we only move forward when we start lifting and helping the weakest and most vulnerable. You also need to realize that not doing that work is also cause for other taxpayer money to be spent elsewhere, such as spending an average of 37k $ per incarcerated person, and that ignores all the damage that criminal might've caused, all the additional police staffing and personal security that is needed to be spent outside prisons, etc. Those are complex systems, are you sure it wouldn't be better to spend the same gargantuan amount of money that's spent on millions of inmates and fighting crime into fighting the causes that make many fall into that? Again, those are complex, but closed systems and the argument of "we shouldn't spend on X" often ignores the cost of not spending on X.
- c1sc0 10mo ago
  No that’s the system working as intended: there’s good private money to be made on incarcerating the poor and uneducated!
- alex43578 10mo ago
  The US already spends 38% more than the OECD average on education per student, just lagging Luxembourg, Austria, Norway, etc - if you’re a student in America, you have access to plenty of resources. You’re right that these are complex systems, and just pouring more tax dollars and more debt into them isn’t working. Portions of our society need to value education, value contributing to society instead of taking, and reject criminality - but those changes require more than blind spending.
  - hvb2 10mo ago
    Let me phrase it this way for you. The best universities are in the US for a lot of things. But they don't scale. In another way, the top talent gets Ferraris for their tuition, the rest gets a bike. In a lot of European countries everyone can get the Toyota Camry of education, decent but not world class. That does scale though. Spending isn't everything, it's how you apply that spending.
lo_zamoyski 10mo ago
As intrinsically social animals, we have general obligations toward other people that precede our consent. How these play out in practice will be determined by the limitations and conditions of the situation. But in general, such obligations radiate outward based on proximity of relation. Our first obligations are toward our immediate families. As the human race is essentially a large extended family, the obligations dissipate the further out we go. We do have a general obligation to help those in need, but this obligation is prioritized. In classical texts, this is called the ordo amoris or "order of love" (in the older, more technically accurate terminology, order of charity, where "charity" - from caritas - means willing the good of the other). Now, to address your comment specifically... > There's already a lot that the US taxpayer is on the hook for that's a lot less valuable than a best on the next big thing in software, productivity, and warfare. For example? Whatever the benefits of LLMs, I find this relative exuberance unreasonable. > It shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed someone that doesn't want to work, In someone able-bodied and of sound mind refuses to work, then we don't have an obligation to support someone like that. This is true. In fact, it would be uncharitable to enable their laziness, because it harms the character and virtue of that person. Of course, in practice, if someone you have determined is able to work is found starving and in danger of death, for example, then it is unlikely they are merely lazy. Would a man of sound mind allow himself to starve? The manner in which we deal with such cases is a prudential matter, not a matter or principle. We need to determine how best to satisfy the principle in the given circumstances, and there is room for debate here. > it absolutely shouldn't be the job of the US taxpayer to feed another country's citizens half a world away. If there is a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world, for example, then there is a general obligation of the entire world to help those affected. How that happens, how that is coordinate, is a matter of prudence and implementation detail, as it were. Naturally, several factors enter the equation (proximity, wealth, etc).

parineum 10mo ago

> Make billionaires richer, make the middle class poor. Make the poor destitute. Make the destitute dead. (All USAID cuts) How do you square this thought with the actual rate of poverty being on a steady downward trend while billionaires do their things?

lenkite 10mo ago
Kindly use the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) - which accounts for government benefits (e.g., tax credits, SNAP), taxes, and expenses like medical costs. This does not show your "steady downward trend", but has considerably fluctuated over the last few years. It is an increase to 12.9% in 2024, compared to 7.1% in 2020-21. Will need to wait till end of 2026 for the 2025 computation.
- parineum 10mo ago
  For the world?
  - lenkite 10mo ago
    Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020–2030 set to be a lost decade - World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ec3d46c25a822d6d248e86d17179ea4e-0090012024/original/Poverty-and-Inequality-Quarterly-Update-3PR-Edition.pdf https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ec3d46c25a822d6d248e86d... Please note that if you exclude China, the trend of poverty reduction is laughable.
    - parineum 10mo ago
      > Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020–2030 set to be a lost decade - World Bank. "Slowed to a near standstill" means it's still moving in the right direction. There may have been some global event in the 2020s that maybe had a bit of an impact on the global economy. > Please note that if you exclude China, the trend of poverty reduction is laughable. If you exclude the area of the world that used to be extremely poor but has benefitted massively from the wealth generated by creating products for the billionaires abroad, why would you exclude that?