fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
No bio...
User ID: 3415
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
as a renter I didn't pay property tax
Yes you do, abstractly via your rent price
The Ontario Trillium tax benefit even pays you back for some of it
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
but it's in service of fighting the threat of high-IQ Asians to his Nietzschean dream
This is why I love HBD discussions. It makes everyone on both sides seethe.
Thanks for the comment, it's a great write up
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I was literally about to post this after waiting like 45 seconds for this thread to load
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
who I believe want everyone in the Levant to lose
Based centerism
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I mean while I find left-Pearl clutching over Nazi claims extremely tiresome, you did literally say "Bring on the nazis"
I guess you're more of a "subtle acceptance" than a "full throated supporter" but still, you didn't exactly make it hard for him there lol
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
Once you accept some level of HBD, the next discussion is finding the policy implications, usually in the context of how to make effective and humane public policy in an HBD world. This is both wonky/unsexy discussion, and also fairly depressing for anyone who likes good policy and dislikes race wars
This is profoundly interesting. Aside from digging into the archives here, know anywhere to read about this?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
insisting that it must be false, and stepping on rake after rake in the process.
This is why I commented, this sounds hilarious and I'm sad I missed it
I'll see if ChatGPT can find threads with good argument density later when I'm not working
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
without a community of noted race scientists like the Motte to further radicalize me
I feel like I showed up to this site too late and missed all of this because I keep seeing people make side references to this/HBD but no one ever actually talks about it, they just talk about talking about it.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
Rope is a solid choice too. I hear AI will even help you with the knot.
Holy fuck lmao
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I mean yeah agree with all of this
My thesis isn't that these people don't exist, they do.
My thesis is just that the phrase "cultural Marxism" has been beaten and twisted to the point it's basically just an out-group signifier that has nothing to do with Marx
I don't think Marx would like DEI departments. I'm actually pretty confident he'd see all the DEI stuff as the bourgeoisie using a wedge issue to keep workers fighting each other.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
Maybe I'm slow today but I'm not understanding your parallel.
Mormon rule is a derivative of Christianity and by prioritizing it with rules you do give it a "supremacy" of a sort I guess.
The words are actually connected to the real life effects.
"Cultural Marxism" has very little to do with Marxism, although I'm still reading through all the philosophy everyone linked so maybe there was a more coherent connective thread in the 1960s, but these days the way it's used is borderline meaningless
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
Which is also... incredibly stupid
The median Westen voter is a moron, the older I get the worse it's revealed to be.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I'm not denying it doesn't exist, full agreement there, I'm just saying "cultural Marxism" is a stupid name
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I was legitimately just trying to clarify what he was saying
Obviously that is happening, I have eyes and I'm not a shitlib
My argument is simply that the phrase "cultural Marxism" is pretty devoid of meaning and when used in common parlance has essentially nothing to do with Marxism at all.
It's basically the right-wing equivalent of the very common leftist trope of "everything I hate is neoliberalism, the more I hate it, the more neoliberal it is"
Just in this case it's "everything I hate is Marxism, the more I hate it, the more Marxist it is"
Ahahahaha it's fucked up colloquial word usage all the way down
Yeah fully agree that CRT and classical liberalism are at odds.
But much like the term "the left", which used to be a reference to actual Marxists but now means "progressive liberalism" (I genuinely don't know what else to call this).
The word "liberal" has evolved from the classical (borderline "don't tread on me") industrial Revolution liberalism to a phrase that's basically interchangeable with "the left"
AHHHHH
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
I actually enjoy his writing/ideas/most of his arguments and use the term because I find it absolutely hilarious and slightly endearing, although I see how that isn't intuitive given the context
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
So you're saying cultural Marxists think black people need to be in charge of art, universities, etc?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
And are we arguing that that has yielded no fruit?
No I'm just saying I don't understand the explanation
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1yr ago
Cultural Marxism is a demonstrable thing, unless you believe that culture is some sort of fungus that shows up on economies. What do you think Homo Sovietcus was, anyway?
I mean sure, "the culture of Marxists" obviously exists
But when my uncle goes on about how DEI departments are "cultural Marxism" I think that is nonsense words. That's "progressive liberalism" and has essentially nothing to do with Marx except that I guess both have a general goal of a more equitable society (although I question if progressive liberals even want that).
Market rate; society
Why did you get this absurd then? Kind of feels like you started this off with a nice strawman to anchor on a certain tone.
"Oh you want to build housing? What if it was a shanty town?!?!?!? Anyway let's talk about this."
I understand this to be your core thesis, although if I'm incorrect please let me know
Taxes
You are conflating progressive income taxation with municipal taxation, which is much less progressive. You also don't demonstrate that "lower per capita tax receipts" = "funding shortfall for services" you just assume that.
Federal or State income taxes being progressive does not tell us much about the marginal fiscal impact per new household in a city.
The focus on per capita tax revenue is also somewhat myopic. You could also look at tax revenue per acre/sq kilometer/sq mile and that would go up. Also the average doesn't matter, the margin does. As long as people are marginally economically net positive, you're ahead.
Property taxes account for 72% of municipal revenue. They are pretty regressive, which is why many cities have many carve outs for old people, etc.
Property taxes in my experience typically have lower mill rates in dense cities versus suburban/exurban cities. Because:
Services
The provision of almost every public service is made more efficient when provided in a more densely built area, all else equal. This is due to both physics (less meters of road/pipe/wire per person) and economies of scale.
A quick google tells me that NYC spends $36,293 per student per year which is 91% above the national average. That's $3000 a month at the highest end. Also not entirely sure why we're focusing on educational costs specifically here.
Similarly I have no idea what medicare has to do with building stuff? If Medicare is a bad system that's a federal level society problem, and not a reason to not build more homes.
Additional economic activity
You completely neglect the fact that more people = more demand for stuff and more people to work at jobs to supply that stuff = more 1%s who own the new businesses that supply the stuff so even if you want to fixate on the progressive tax brackets you'll get more of that too. Plus more 10%ers to be accountants and lawyers to support the new businesses, etc
Closing thoughts
Your argument seems to rest on the concept of "tax net takers are bad in large numbers" which is obviously true.
Your argument seems to ignore the fact that NYC, SF, Chicago, LA, London, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Ruhr corridor, etc are all massive economic engines and the most productive and prosperous places in all of human civilization.
As stated above, building more results in simultaneous increases in demand/supply for everything while also bringing down marginal service costs, with the one assumption that you are in fact adding productive adults, which any non-failed civilisation should be capable of doing (given this paragraph basically summarizes 10,000 years of human economic development).
If you'd instead like to discuss how the US education system is ridiculously expensive per student (it is) or that the US healthcare system mis-allocates vast amounts of capital, much of it taxpayer's (it does) by all means do so. But don't wrap incredibly expected value positive construction in with that. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Also, how did the USA's various urban areas come to dominate it's economy if this held? How did they ever work if they, according to you, should have had their tax base average down into insolvency?
More options
Context Copy link