4 ms·

The Nordic model does a great job of providing a poor-raising floor (which also launches entrepreneurs at a higher success rate than in the US). And Norway in p

The Nordic model does a great job of providing a poor-raising floor (which also launches entrepreneurs at a higher success rate than in the US). And Norway in particular seems to have figured out how to take commons resources and turn them into common wealth while industry retains profit incentives. No one is “eviscerated.” And it’s disingenuous to use that term for any proposal that has even the slightest public traction in the US. The most extreme proposals require single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy. No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. Yet. But if we pretend the only options are (a) unencumbered hyperwealth with attendant hyper income inequality and (b) eviscerating the wealthy for long enough, it’s more likely some people will eventually embrace the latter. And this is particularly relevant for the age of LLMs. None of them approach intelligence with reliance on a huge data commons (and likely even data that isn’t intended for the commons) they’re an enterprise with a natural arrow from the commons to the common wealth, if we can remember a culture that sustains it.

WalterBright 7mo ago
The Nordic model depends on sitting on an ocean of oil. > No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. See Bernie Sanders! Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state).
- dh2022 7mo ago
  Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, Walter Bright. To eviscerate means to disembowel. Nobody is pushing to physically hurt the rich. But people are upset that their standards of living are declining while every opportunity to give more money to the rich is executed. Bernie Sanders asked for taxing the rich and the corporations. Taxing someone does not mean disembowel.
  - WalterBright 7mo ago
    I know what the word means, and I am sure you understand it is not meant to be taken literally. For example, do you remember when AOC proudly wore a dress with the words "Eat the rich" emblazoned on it? Nobody accused her of suggesting cannibalism. Bernie Sanders has frequently stated that billionaires should not exist. He used to excoriate millionaires, until he became one himself.
- wwweston 7mo ago
  The "Nordic model" refers to the socioeconomics common in Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), not just to Norway. It's about how you approach commons and common wealth. Any commons will do. It does not rely on oil resources per se. Let's say for the sake of argument it does depend on oil wealth, though. The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does (>200 billion barrels vs ~7 billion). It has already produced at least 200billion barrels since the 1850s. What if the US had treated the wealth from past oil production the way Norway has? What if it treated the next 200 billion that way? And oil is only one of many commons resources to choose from. > See Bernie Sanders! Yes, I addressed Sanders proposal in my earlier comment: "single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy." A single digit wealth tax is unlikely to fully offset even conventional yearly returns, hence the "might not have impact beyond stabilizing" the wealth of those subject to it. Even if we assume no yearly returns though -- simply a 5% bite out of net worth -- a wealth tax will not make anyone in that economic strata unwealthy (there's a billions-floor beneath which it wouldn't apply, leaving the worst case still radically prosperous). There's no reasonable basis to characterize that as "evisceration." But repeating loaded terms like that as part of an ideological rosary is a common religious and rhetorical strategy. > Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state). My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. Having dynastic wealth flows limited over a few million dollars is also not reasonably described as "evisceration" (especially with all the other vehicles for transferring wealth). May as well complain to God that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser.
  - WalterBright 7mo ago
    > The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does And 60x the population. And defends the world with defense expenditures. > simply a 5% bite out of net worth Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Washington state enacted a 7% capital gains tax, and the next year raised it to 9.9%. Now they're close to enacting a 9.9% income tax. > My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: 35% of $997,000,000 + 40% of $990,000,000 = 74.5% effective tax rate. > Sanders said many times that billionaires should not exist > that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser. You could take all the money from billionaires and it won't raise the general standard of living. You will also never have companies like SpaceX.

WalterBright 7mo ago

The Nordic model depends on sitting on an ocean of oil. > No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. See Bernie Sanders! Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state).

dh2022 7mo ago
Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, Walter Bright. To eviscerate means to disembowel. Nobody is pushing to physically hurt the rich. But people are upset that their standards of living are declining while every opportunity to give more money to the rich is executed. Bernie Sanders asked for taxing the rich and the corporations. Taxing someone does not mean disembowel.
- WalterBright 7mo ago
  I know what the word means, and I am sure you understand it is not meant to be taken literally. For example, do you remember when AOC proudly wore a dress with the words "Eat the rich" emblazoned on it? Nobody accused her of suggesting cannibalism. Bernie Sanders has frequently stated that billionaires should not exist. He used to excoriate millionaires, until he became one himself.
wwweston 7mo ago
The "Nordic model" refers to the socioeconomics common in Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), not just to Norway. It's about how you approach commons and common wealth. Any commons will do. It does not rely on oil resources per se. Let's say for the sake of argument it does depend on oil wealth, though. The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does (>200 billion barrels vs ~7 billion). It has already produced at least 200billion barrels since the 1850s. What if the US had treated the wealth from past oil production the way Norway has? What if it treated the next 200 billion that way? And oil is only one of many commons resources to choose from. > See Bernie Sanders! Yes, I addressed Sanders proposal in my earlier comment: "single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy." A single digit wealth tax is unlikely to fully offset even conventional yearly returns, hence the "might not have impact beyond stabilizing" the wealth of those subject to it. Even if we assume no yearly returns though -- simply a 5% bite out of net worth -- a wealth tax will not make anyone in that economic strata unwealthy (there's a billions-floor beneath which it wouldn't apply, leaving the worst case still radically prosperous). There's no reasonable basis to characterize that as "evisceration." But repeating loaded terms like that as part of an ideological rosary is a common religious and rhetorical strategy. > Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state). My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. Having dynastic wealth flows limited over a few million dollars is also not reasonably described as "evisceration" (especially with all the other vehicles for transferring wealth). May as well complain to God that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser.
- WalterBright 7mo ago
  > The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does And 60x the population. And defends the world with defense expenditures. > simply a 5% bite out of net worth Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Washington state enacted a 7% capital gains tax, and the next year raised it to 9.9%. Now they're close to enacting a 9.9% income tax. > My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: 35% of $997,000,000 + 40% of $990,000,000 = 74.5% effective tax rate. > Sanders said many times that billionaires should not exist > that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser. You could take all the money from billionaires and it won't raise the general standard of living. You will also never have companies like SpaceX.