domain:slatestarcodex.com
hanikrummihundursvin
14m ago
You're approaching this from an angle where propaganda is something I don't think it is.
Joe Rogan wasn't 'built'. It was an accidental fire that happened to be able to exist since it spawned from spheres that were very much not intellectual and not mainstream. Fighting sports, drugs and a clique of mildly failing comedians. On top of that it was a new and emerging medium. It did survive by chance. It was fringe enough that no one with money wanted to touch it until people figured out just how big it had gotten.
By that point Rogan, through his own personal conviction and other things, figured out he didn't need any money men. The technology to monetize was, by chance, there to be used. His ownership of this thing he had made was more important to him. You can swap Rogan out for a different person and that person could just as well have sold the whole thing out for a big paycheck as soon as he could. Let Spotify or whatever interested party dictate the guests or allow them some minimal control over what is allowed to be said about certain topics and whatever else. Really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Similar to how cries of cries of a lack of internet censorship were eventually heard, the calls for a left wing Joe Rogan will eventually be heard. This exact same game was played out with early internet culture. "What goes on the internet stays forever". Turns out this is not true. 'The Internet Hate Machine' was eventually neutered and killed off. Be that through direct action by the powers that be, or that people change, grow older, die, or whatever else. To that extent there is nothing that is lined up to replace Rogan. And like with other mediums, the slot Joe Rogan fills will either be subverted and controlled or bricked up.
phailyoor
15m ago
Unclear how much it actually hurt him, given that the election also had a bizarre spoiler candidate.
Anyways if he promised no new taxes and then cucked to Democrats who wanted to raise taxes, I think it's a bit self-inflicted.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
20m ago
Was this, as you say, 10 years ago or recent? Ten years ago is 2015. My opinion on everyone's behavior is the same, but for you I want to reassure you to forget about that, it's history, it doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with you now.
I'm the sort of interfering avuncular figure who will give all sorts of advice in women and will be pointedly aggressive in telling you what to do/not do, and take it all very loosely and saltily, byt that's my first bit of advice. Forget decades-old bad interactions.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
47m ago
How exactly does one “offer the mantle”? I can’t think of any historical examples where one party politely set its opponents’ agenda.
If you’re actually asking why people aren’t blaming Democrats for Trump’s indiscretions, I assure you that they are. On this very board, even! If this is a suggestion that Trump might secure peace in our time by looting a little bit harder, well, you can consider me unconvinced.
I think people—voters—react to situations based on vibes. Losing my job to a financial crisis is bad. Cheap gas is good. Paying for someone’s abortion is bad. Defending democracy is good. Stick enough of these reactions together, draw a rough, inconsistent set of principles around them, and you’ve got yourself a political movement. The agenda of that movement, then, is largely downstream of its members’ reactions to whatever situations are most salient.
When the towers fell, public opinion was firmly in favor of massive retaliation. W was quite willing to oblige, and most of the opposition fell in line. There was never a dignified, first-principles discussion over who got to lead the charge. Even once the public soured on it, Obama picked up the bag and kept at it. Right place, right time.
There’s a bizarro alternate universe where Trump’s foreign and economic policies dovetailed into a strong COVID response. It’s one where the doomsday preppers felt vindicated as suburban liberals insisted that lockdowns are just racism. That possibility faded away as Trump began to downplay the virus. Once relaxing measures was Trump-coded, there was no chance in hell that Democrats would give up on the issue. Wrong place, wrong time.
The only way parties adopt an issue is if they’re in the right place when the vibe shifts. The only way for us to see a vibe shift on entitlements is if they somehow become obsolete. I think that either means mass mortality or mass productivity. I don’t believe the Republican Party can “offer” either.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
52m ago
By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
aqouta
1hr ago
Yeah, when you realize something like half the federal budget goes to elderly people who had a whole lifetime to save up it's kind of black pilling.
DavidFriedman
1hr ago
most of the "grey tribe" Silicon Valley types who switched sides to support Trump also are starting to regret their decision it seems. Notably David Friedman(?) from the All-in Podcast,
I am the only David Friedman I know of associated with the grey tribe but I have no connection to the All-in podcast, have a Substack, and never supported Trump. You can find my comments on him by using the search bar on my web page: www.daviddfriedman.com.
roystgnr
1hr ago
It looks like you only get taxed on the gains on your assets when you expatriate; you don't get re-taxed on anything that's already part of their cost basis.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
I tend to find most of those people have policies they care about, maybe worker protection or something are not as ill as the vibes based group. I’m not going to say you can’t be interested in policy or active in policy positions and be semi sane. But a lot of people are using politics as a substitute for identity and morality to the point that it takes on almost a cult mentality and you have little else going on in your life, or if you do, you’ll worry about the political implications of your other life choices. I find such people sad.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
Yep. I don't see why Elon would go straight for the Epstein accusation except as a result of being too volatile.
One problem is that he probably doesn't have any strong enough evidence. And even if people really believed Trump had screwed a 14 year old - would it fell him? Maybe not.
cjet79
1hr ago
I think I remember some IRS rule going into effect a decade ago that said that if you renounced US citizenship you get taxed on all your assets as if they were income for that year.
I only knew about this because I studiously have followed libertarian arguments for a long time, including "if you don't like it you should leave" and the rejoinder now being obvious "ya and have a third of all my wealth stolen for the privilege of leaving, thanks assholes".
I think there was a lot of people leaving right before this rule went into effect.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
That's insane but also almost admirable.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
I mean it depends on how much you raise the taxes. You might get away with a modest 5% increase in taxes, maybe even 10%. But if you go too high, the victim of those tax increases is going to be much more interested in being not American because nobody sane is going to agree to give a country he doesn’t even live in 60% or more of their earnings. Why do that when you can become Romanian or something and only pay a third or less in tax? What would these overseas Americans gain from remaining American when the things they have in other countries can be just as good?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1hr ago
Fiscal responsibility appears likely to lose elections. Fiscal irresponsibility seems likely to win elections. spending political power to do something that the other side gains political power for undoing seems notably different from your football metaphor.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1hr ago
Uniquely, the Afghans saw the American Empire's cultural exports as the net-negative that they are (the bombs themselves didn't help either), were in a very unique position to reject them, so they did.
Transing other countries very observably makes them weaker, and as such doing so is generally in the US' interests. That this also applies to the US itself is not as much a concern.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2hr ago
A 1% yearly wealth tax is pretty high though - you have to compare that to interest rates and inflation. Ten year treasuries are 4.5% right now, so this is like another 20% capital gains tax, and thats low due to the circumstances in the US - relative to Euribor its 50%.
anon_
2hr ago
What can be implemented by one government can be overridden by the next government.
What is the point of my team advancing the football if the next possession by the other guy can advance it right back the other direction?
Well, for one, each administration starts whether the last one left off. So at the very least they have to spend effort and political capital overriding what you've done rather than on advancing their interests (in the counterfactual where you didn't have office last).
BurdensomeCount
Messenger Status: Shot
2hr ago
Trusts and foundations can also be taxed like the UK does today (6% of their assets every 10 years, but equivalent to a 1% yearly tax is more like 10.5% every 10 years). The foreign cousin problem is harder to fix, but then again, if you're in the top 1% do you really trust your foreign cousin enough to not run away with your $40 million you've just put in his name legally? Very likely you'd want to insure against this risk and I think the yearly rate for such insurance would be above 1%. At that point it's just cheaper to pay the tax...
anon_
2hr ago
Why then would the wealthy hold such taxable property in their own name? It will be in a trust or foundation or in the name of their foreign cousin.
Second order effects dominate here.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
2hr ago
The FairTax would make it so the truly rich couldn’t spend money without the government getting a quarter of it.
The FairTax proposal does not tax anything rich people spend a lot of money on.
The section of Wikipedia page on FairTax titled "Taxable items and exemptions" says:
Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of stock, corporate mergers and acquisitions and capital investments. Savings and education tuition expenses would be exempt as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption).
It also says that rent would be taxed. It's not specified there, but reading into the sources, I see buying a house would not be except for new construction (unclear exactly what that means if most of the price of the house is the land it is on? Is that amount re-taxed every time a new building is built on it?).
Sure, rich people spend more on food and other everyday expenses than poor people, but not a lot more. Many more expensive purchases (housing, education, companies) are exempt from the tax or could easily just be made in a different country (yachts, private planes) and carefully never "imported". Those purchases are currently made with money that's at least theoretically taxed as income.
BurdensomeCount
Messenger Status: Shot
2hr ago
Facilitating the underclass' antisocial tendencies/addiction to corn syrup is worse long term.
Oh I completely agree, but the solution to the underclass lies outside the usual democratic process just because there are so many of them. You can't cut their entitlement and at the same time let them have the vote. One or the other has to be given up.
BurdensomeCount
Messenger Status: Shot
2hr ago
There is no place on God's green earth free from the clutches of the IRS; well, at least no place that a normal American would want to live in. The US already taxes Americas overseas on their worldwide income and the IRS has enough fangs that the victims have to pay up or face real consequences. Doesn't make too many Americans renounce their citizenship each year. I am also proposing to extend the long arm of the IRS to American assets abroad too at the same time you start taxing wealth, that way there's no point for the Americans to move their money overseas as it's gonna get taxed anyways...
Of course, as you say, there will need to be an exemption for temporary residents in the USA otherwise people aren't gonna want to come here, but those people are on average much poorer than US citizens and so the loss of income from not taxing their wealth would be minimal.
Did you Google yourself, or do you read this forum as well?
The other poster got confused, and was referring to David Friedberg.
More options
Context Copy link