3 ms·

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot

by taurath 7mo ago

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

gigatexal 7mo ago
Yeah imma get out of index and hold my basket and just rebalance. This is dumb. Why bend the rules for a trillionaire?
- Nevermark 7mo ago
  > Why bend the rules[?] > for a trillionaire[!] This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work. And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But for now, the sea still sets the rules, and the sea is deep. For the deeper system, island visibility is a useful distraction. Sometimes something heavy moves near the surface and we misinterpret visibility as exception.
  - gigatexal 7mo ago
    Did you get lost and start writing a poem? What’s all this about the “sea”? Fine. Let me turn down my anti-Elon-ness for a bit and caveat that the timing of these changes coinciding with this listing is suspicious, no? Grant me that at least. And then we can, with new found common ground, investigate the motives behind such a change.
    - Nevermark 7mo ago
      Lol. Yeah, I am tired and need a nap. Half unconscious over focus. Pay no mind!
    - Nevermark 7mo ago
      Nap achieved. > Grant me that at least Granted, indeed, and with the summarily bestowed honor of our royal favor. Yes. The changes for Elon are exactly what they look like. Preferred treatment in exchange for the priveledge of being paid vast sums to serve him. My sober point is that this is absolute par for the course. Every whale gets this treatment. Elon can take his business somewhere else, and expects something for not doing so. The exception here is not a bent rule. But that the special treatment his spending power "merits" is so enormous, that the proportional conflict-of-interest sacrifice, is unusually visible.
      - gigatexal 7mo ago
        because it's the way things are done doesn't mean it's right ... but it's not like money or capital has ever been moral. I see the point.
gruez 7mo ago
Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?
- nutjob2 7mo ago
  Yes.
- motbus3 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gruez 7mo ago
    Someone who can't articulate who the villains are out of a pre-selected list and has to fall back to personal attacks is pretty "weak" as well.
    - Teever 7mo ago
      If you were to apply the principle of charity[0] to the person you originally asked the question to, who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
      - gruez 7mo ago
        >who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context? It's really not clear, which is why I listed 3 plausible options. I'm also not going to bother attacking an imaginary position and be accused of "strawman" or whatever.
- whattheheckheck 7mo ago
  Open your eyes? Everyone on the top 1000 Forbes and at trumps inauguration?
- scythe 7mo ago
  The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed." There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.
ddp26 7mo ago
Got a source on this? I didn't take into account in this forecast that public markets could be very inefficient in this way.
- conorcleary 7mo ago
  oh baby, that's the just 'new' way they screw ya
jaredklewis 7mo ago
Geez this comment is a melodramatic non sequitur. There's no rule you have to own QQQ and indeed most people don't. There are thousands of low cost ETFs that provide passive exposure to the market. If this new rule bothers you, be like most people and buy one of those instead of QQQ. Problem solved. Like sure, let's improve our tax systems (as an aside, I would say there are many more efficient and progressive options than a wealth tax, but whatever), but I don't see how there is even a tangential link between that topic and the NDX rule change.
- yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
  As soon as you try to do something more efficient than: mv some_rich_ppl_money some_poor_ppl You're making it more inefficient; any other hop in such a system is inefficiency. Such a tiny minority of real people are not that important to the species. Maybe that important to some mind palace of some contemporary meat suits but they're going to die anyway; kicking the can down the road for future people. If we can fuck the future, fuck us then. Our existence is just as forfeitable My neighbors and family have been expressing such. If we're just going to screw the next generation via environmental collapse and serfdom to rich overlords they opt to give up on the living enabling it
- tripletao 7mo ago
  If you already own highly appreciated QQQ in a taxable account then your options are limited, since moving to a different ETF would realize the capital gain. It may be preferable to hold even if you think you're losing money buying SpaceX at an inflated price, if selling would lose even more in taxes. If you own an ETF that buys SpaceX but without overweighting vs. float, then you're not contributing to the inflated price in that sense. You're still buying at the inflated price though, so the NASDAQ rule change still affects you indirectly. I guess the point of the "wealth tax" comment is that any higher taxation of the wealthiest individuals would reduce their power to shape the rules to their favor, and a wealth tax is potentially harder to avoid than income taxes. I think most prior attempts just made them emigrate, though.
  - underlipton 7mo ago

by taurath 7mo ago

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

gigatexal 7mo ago

Yeah imma get out of index and hold my basket and just rebalance. This is dumb. Why bend the rules for a trillionaire?

Nevermark 7mo ago
> Why bend the rules[?] > for a trillionaire[!] This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work. And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But for now, the sea still sets the rules, and the sea is deep. For the deeper system, island visibility is a useful distraction. Sometimes something heavy moves near the surface and we misinterpret visibility as exception.
- gigatexal 7mo ago
  Did you get lost and start writing a poem? What’s all this about the “sea”? Fine. Let me turn down my anti-Elon-ness for a bit and caveat that the timing of these changes coinciding with this listing is suspicious, no? Grant me that at least. And then we can, with new found common ground, investigate the motives behind such a change.
  - Nevermark 7mo ago
    Lol. Yeah, I am tired and need a nap. Half unconscious over focus. Pay no mind!
  - Nevermark 7mo ago
    Nap achieved. > Grant me that at least Granted, indeed, and with the summarily bestowed honor of our royal favor. Yes. The changes for Elon are exactly what they look like. Preferred treatment in exchange for the priveledge of being paid vast sums to serve him. My sober point is that this is absolute par for the course. Every whale gets this treatment. Elon can take his business somewhere else, and expects something for not doing so. The exception here is not a bent rule. But that the special treatment his spending power "merits" is so enormous, that the proportional conflict-of-interest sacrifice, is unusually visible.
    - gigatexal 7mo ago
      because it's the way things are done doesn't mean it's right ... but it's not like money or capital has ever been moral. I see the point.

gruez 7mo ago

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?

nutjob2 7mo ago
Yes.
motbus3 7mo ago
[flagged]
- gruez 7mo ago
  Someone who can't articulate who the villains are out of a pre-selected list and has to fall back to personal attacks is pretty "weak" as well.
  - Teever 7mo ago
    If you were to apply the principle of charity[0] to the person you originally asked the question to, who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context? It's really not clear, which is why I listed 3 plausible options. I'm also not going to bother attacking an imaginary position and be accused of "strawman" or whatever.
whattheheckheck 7mo ago
Open your eyes? Everyone on the top 1000 Forbes and at trumps inauguration?
scythe 7mo ago
The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed." There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.

ddp26 7mo ago

Got a source on this? I didn't take into account in this forecast that public markets could be very inefficient in this way.

conorcleary 7mo ago
oh baby, that's the just 'new' way they screw ya

jaredklewis 7mo ago

Geez this comment is a melodramatic non sequitur. There's no rule you have to own QQQ and indeed most people don't. There are thousands of low cost ETFs that provide passive exposure to the market. If this new rule bothers you, be like most people and buy one of those instead of QQQ. Problem solved. Like sure, let's improve our tax systems (as an aside, I would say there are many more efficient and progressive options than a wealth tax, but whatever), but I don't see how there is even a tangential link between that topic and the NDX rule change.

yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
As soon as you try to do something more efficient than: mv some_rich_ppl_money some_poor_ppl You're making it more inefficient; any other hop in such a system is inefficiency. Such a tiny minority of real people are not that important to the species. Maybe that important to some mind palace of some contemporary meat suits but they're going to die anyway; kicking the can down the road for future people. If we can fuck the future, fuck us then. Our existence is just as forfeitable My neighbors and family have been expressing such. If we're just going to screw the next generation via environmental collapse and serfdom to rich overlords they opt to give up on the living enabling it
tripletao 7mo ago
If you already own highly appreciated QQQ in a taxable account then your options are limited, since moving to a different ETF would realize the capital gain. It may be preferable to hold even if you think you're losing money buying SpaceX at an inflated price, if selling would lose even more in taxes. If you own an ETF that buys SpaceX but without overweighting vs. float, then you're not contributing to the inflated price in that sense. You're still buying at the inflated price though, so the NASDAQ rule change still affects you indirectly. I guess the point of the "wealth tax" comment is that any higher taxation of the wealthiest individuals would reduce their power to shape the rules to their favor, and a wealth tax is potentially harder to avoid than income taxes. I think most prior attempts just made them emigrate, though.
- underlipton 7mo ago