Jobs are different; which jobs in your opinion are likely to be lost? I can't think of examples where less-skilled labor workers would lose their jobs as result of tariffs, other than in a case where they were a maid/gardener of some business that went bankrupt by said tariffs.
Give some good examples, please, to support your claim.
What makes you think the United States has lost hard economic assets? Also, have you considered that there are different types of innovations, that are affected by the structure of an economy and its research institutions?
The US has dominated radical innovations, China has excelled in incremental innovations. We're potentially throwing away our advantage in the former by decimating our research capacity (something conspicuously absent in your concept of what drives innovation), and there is no clear plan to take the necessary steps to rebuild our capacity in the latter.
Huh. I'm admittedly no astrophysicist, but I don't recall encountering this "photons have no velocity in the time dimension" before.
Maybe I'm one of today's lucky 10,000[1].
It's not true. It's a mashup of a few ideas that don't belong together.
1. an object at rest has a world line which points (has tangent vectors) in the time dimension
2. light has proper time (dtau) = 0, so clocks moving at the speed of light dont tick
3. the magnitude^2 of an objects 4-velocity is c^2 (objects move through spacetime at c)
4. light has no 4-velocity (because dtau=0, you cant divide by zero)
You can't say (3) means objects have 4-velocity c in spacetime and light has 3-velocity c in space and so that means the time component of 4-velocity for light is zero.
But, it is sort of common to observe the somewhat trippy fact that, unlike matter, photons don’t experience time passing, right? (Although, I will be honest, I could not ever really grok relativity like a physicist. However, I can enjoy the Lorentz factor going to infinity as v goes to c).
From my understanding, it's more correct to say that time is undefined for massless objects.
Through special relativity, our understanding of mass, gravity, and spacetime are linked. If something has no mass, then special relativity can't describe how gravity affects it's spacetime reference.
Remember, however, that this explanation is based on the mathematics that explain the observations we've made or theorized. Just as the map is not the territory, the math is not the universe.
This was a trending topic on Twitter last week, and some of the criticism was how the story ignored the hundreds of dollars this family would have received from the Child Tax Credit to offset the costs.
1. While there might be attempts to "juke" 409a valuations, a tax on capital appreciation still makes founders wealthier if their stock holdings appreciates in value. They might get 75 cents for every dollar of appreciation due to taxes, but it's irrational to think there isn't an incentive to continue growing their companies and wealth.
2. In order to maintain control of their companies, and avoid taxation, it's possible for companies to create separate classes of voting, non-voting, and sometimes super-voting shares. Even though only one of GOOG and GOOGL holds voting power, they still trade relatively closely in value.
3. Founders of privately held companies can choose who they want to sell their shares to. It's possible they might sell them to closely-tied venture capital firms or pension funds. I don't know why you're so concerned about foreign purchasers, when they already have the ability to purchase public and private companies. It's not like anything is changing in that regard.
5. It's possible that some existing billionaires will attempt to avoid these taxes, but it's hard to expect that future founders will have the foresight to prematurely sacrifice founding their business in a country that attracts investment and talent.
It's certainly possible, but if founding a business in the USA is a common characteristic among billionaire founders, it's hard to imagine entrepreneurs who aren't yet billionaires will take their business somewhere else due to the potential future tax consequences of becoming a billionaire.
A tax on personal unrealized capital gains will not take away any money from the company. It's privately-held, and has no effect on a company's balance sheet.
I really don't like how the OP phrased this one, because it's about more than knowing the value of your car.
This paper was published in 1970, but it demonstrated how markets can fail, as well as a method of correcting that failure. Imagine the following scenario:
There's a used car market of private sellers that is comprised of a mixture of peaches (good) and lemons (bad). To keep it simple, let's assume we're just talking about one model of car.
Additionally, there's no way to identify which car is a lemon, but it's known that they're worth much less than a peach because of the much higher cost of maintenance.
If you have a market where the above conditions exist (only seller knows if car is lemon/peach, and a mixture of lemons/peaches), you'd potentially end up with a market failure.
This is because sellers of peaches can't get the price they want for their car, whereas sellers of lemons can profit over the expected value of theirs.
The problem with assuming that lemons would be removed from the market is that any buyer of a lemon would want to sell it once they've realized what they purchased, putting it back on the market. This effect compounds to where a greater percentage of cars being sold on the market are lemons, further depressing the price and removing peaches from the market.
Akerlof's solution to fix the market was to introduce warranties. Owners of peaches would be willing to offer warranties, because they trusted the quality of the cars they were selling. Eventually, buyers would see the lack of a warranty as the indication of a car being a lemon, forcing the sellers of lemons to either offer a warranty or lower their asking price below the market price of the vehicle.
His work applied to the function of other markets, like insurance (older people are the costliest for health insurance companies) and employment markets (Certain classes of people have difficulty finding a job despite similar skills), as well as the institutions that have formed (Medicare, professional licensing) to improve the functioning of these markets.
Edit: I was wrong, he's doing exactly what I thought he wasn't. See Hannibalhorn's comment below for more details.
I'm glad he supports Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), but I think he's going about this the wrong way.
Right now, he's creating a new third-party within an electoral system that effectively defaults to two existing and dominant parties. Those two parties currently control every federal and state legislature and/or election committee that has the power to alter how elections are run.
Working against them, in a system that is extremely hostile to third-parties, makes it very hard to effect change because you are almost always guaranteed to be a loser, and be viewed as an opponent.
If his interests are truly about implementing RCV nationwide, a better course of action would be to endorse and campaign for the Democratic and Republican candidates that are willing to commit to implementing RCV.
In any state where you can get a filibuster-proof majority of those candidates elected, you would have a much better chance of changing the electoral system.
Simply put, lobbying for RCV would be more effective than introducing a third-party within our current electoral system.
We will support candidates for office who align with our core principles so that we can reform the system and make it more responsive to the American people. This means that we will support Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - as well as candidates identifying themselves as Forward Party members.
The Forward Party is a PAC that plans to grow its support and then petition the FEC for recognition as a political party when we fulfill the requirements, which include operating in several states, supporting candidates, getting volunteers signed up around the country, and other party activities.
One method for avoiding the problem of splitting the vote is to only run candidates in ridings which are otherwise effectively "single candidate", places where the incumbents are expected to get >66% of the vote without you running.
This also lets you focus your resources more, and lets you pander more to a specific kind of voter (the voters you need to win the otherwise-not-competitive ridings you are running in).
MMP is way better than FPP, however the NZ version with list MPs is undesirable in my opinion, because the party gets to choose candidates who get zero votes and then get into parliament. To remove someone you have to vote out the party.
To explain: in NZ MMP, the party creates a list of candidates, and if the party is voted for, people from the list become members of parliament. NZ also has 60 out of 120 seats allocated by voting in an electorate, but even someone that doesn’t win their electorate can still become an MP if they are sufficiently high on the party list. https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/what-is-new-zealands-sy...
