zeke5123
10mo ago
-
If invested in equities, then yes the nominal price will adjust for inflation. However, that means you will have taxable income on nominal but not real gain leaving you worse off.
-
If you invested in a fixed return (eg bonds) you are screwed.
zeke5123
10mo ago
Agreed with the broader point re gold standard. I’m making the more narrow point about whether depreciating dollar is good or bad.
As for volatility and pricing, sure academically. But I’m not sure people actual use models like that to invest — especially when it comes to highly uncertain returns. That is, venture capital is so uncertain trying to figure out expected return is a bit of a fools errand.
zeke5123
10mo ago
As a RDS voter, I’m pretty much RDS or bust (covid heavily influenced my political choice coupled with RDS’ general competence such as in Ian).
I have a decent preference for Trump over Haley mainly because while I think both would suck Haley reminds me too much of Bush. So maybe I fall in that camp?
zeke5123
10mo ago
It might be dated but Haley seems to have a cliff problem. Second choice of most Trump voters a couple of weeks back was RDS by a large margin.
I’ve met people who have positive things to say about her. With that said, I think she has largely not had any criticism thrown her way (it is starting — only question is (1) will it be effective and (2) will it be effective immediately).
With all of that said, she is supported by people I hate and therefore I will not vote for her.
zeke5123
10mo ago
Inflation helps debtors and hurts savers and therefore you’d kind of suspect a country that money isn’t sound to become less interested in investing long term or perhaps more likely to invest in more volatile assets.
Also, you’d suspect bankers to become worth more as the Cantillion effects run rampant encouraging the financialization of the economy.
Maybe these things are good but seems like those could be side effects of depreciation
zeke5123
10mo ago
Sure, you can just throw out precedent as insincere but well once you go down that road a lot of things start looking insincere.
First, there is ambiguity whether in the Davis case Chase ruled in the manner you describe. There is at best hearsay that Chase thought the amendment self executing in the context of Davis and that was never settled (eg there was never an opinion).
Second, it again ignores the distinction (that we see often in US law) between laws that restrict government action (ie providing more freedom to the citizens) and laws that restrict citizen action (ie laws that restrict freedom). We generally give more latitude to the first and less to the former because we generally think government inaction shouldn’t deny properly bestowed rights while at the same time believing that unclear rules shouldn’t prohibit someone from exercising rights they may have. That is, in Davis the 14th amendment could arguably be viewed as a right protecting people whereas in Griffin it is stripping people of the right and therefore it could be self executing in one and not the other.
This provides a legal harmonization of the potential conflict between the two different cases. That is the better approach compared to just saying “Chase is full of shit.” Now it doesn’t mean Chase is right. But given that it is the to my knowledge only relevant near in time case on topic it seems like we should give it a lot of weight.
zeke5123
10mo ago
Well it’s possible to know that person X was recorded as voting. That is different from knowing they voted.
zeke5123
10mo ago
On the flip side, the federal system enabled some states (eg Florida, Georgia) to show that the covid restrictions were nonsense. That is, despite the world getting smaller local control still allowed for so called different laboratories enabling a better outcome compared to a bet it all on black approach.
zeke5123
10mo ago
I’m assuming a return of roughly 4-8% return so maybe some small principal drawdowns but mostly income.
zeke5123
10mo ago
I think if we just took the takings clause seriously that would be better than overturning Wickard. And honestly, the judiciary is starting to take takings more seriously b
zeke5123
10mo ago
I’m just thinking let’s say you are a relatively upper middle class person. Have a 401k of around 900k-1m invested conservatively. You are at retirement. You on net paid taxes for 35+ years. But now, your investment income of 50-70k pa is going to have a pretty small effective tax rate. And you draw SS. All of a sudden, net-net you are taking in more than you pay despite being a productive taxpayer for decades.
I like the ten year window idea. It largely (though not entirely) solves the above. Of course making it a non-annual test increases complexity.
zeke5123
10mo ago
It is even worse than that. One of the dissents when going through 1st, 2nd, etc specially mentioned this as something that suggests “maybe the Colorado process wasn’t the right one to adjudicate this mess.”
I guess what really bothers me about this whole thing is that I understand “damn the consequences” when the law is clear. I don’t understand the same attitude when the law is at best slightly on the other side and more naturally heavily on the other side
zeke5123
10mo ago
I don’t have time to respond to everything but a few points:
-
It is true that frequently the constitution is indeterminate. But there is a difference between government cannot abridge your ability speak (a prohibition on the government) and another that the government can rather arbitrarily prohibit you from running for office (a prohibition on both a person and the public). We generally require more effort by congress to curtail rights as opposed to the opposite because in the US freedom is the presumption.
-
The idea that due process (and for that matter equal protection) don’t apply to political office ignores the arguments that we protect political rights for more than pretty much any other rights. See the famous footnote in Carolene Products. Could the government decide that anyone who supported BLM is ineligible to run for government on a whim without even rational basis review?
-
One of the dissents did in fact raise the question of whether it applied to the office of the presidency (along with a bunch of other questions). This formed part of the dissent’s argument that it wasn’t self executing. Read closer before making sweeping statements.
-
You are assuming that if dissent X argues A and dissent Y argues B that they are disagreeing. No. It could easily be that they are making a separate argument as to why it doesn’t apply. Having more than one compelling argument isn’t a bad thing.
zeke5123
10mo ago
Israel didn’t make the choice to value Gazan lives less than Israelis. Gaza did when it launched a terrorist attack.
Just like if some breaks into my house, then me killing them isn’t saying anything about how I value life but instead is making a statement about how the criminal values life.
zeke5123
10mo ago
A subset of X attacks Y. Y responds in part to deter future attacks by X. Y kills some of X accidentally (including those uninvolved in the attack). Z claims “that’s collective punishment.” Y responds I am not trying to collective punish X; the only way to eliminate the capacity of X to attack Y is this attack. Otherwise, you effectively give X a deadly analog to the heckler’s veto.
Not sure why virtue ethics requires this. Seems like you can also get there using utilitarian reasoning.
zeke5123
10mo ago
The legal arguments seem incredibly weak.
First, you need to define “what is an insurrection.” The amendment is silent on that. Next, you need to determine whether the proposed candidate in fact engaged in an “insurrection.” The amendment doesn’t specify the process, standard, or who gets to answer that question.
It would be an incredibly weird provision that takes away both the right of voters and the right of a candidate to seek office yet doesn’t answer these very basic questions.
Indeed, it is hard to square with the 14th amendment’s own guarantee of due process (ie we acknowledge the importance of due process except here where we will let a county clerk decide unilaterally based on whatever standard he or she likes that someone is an insurrectionist). All the more so in the context when the 14th amendment was adopted — do you really think the north wanted to give the southern states carte blanche to strike whomever they wanted from the ballot without due process of law?
Those are the infirmities before the question is even answered whether the article even applies to the presidency (there is a strong argument it doesn’t since the provision specifies, inter alia, electors but is silent on the presidency). And then there is the still procedural question of even if the amendment is self executing absent congressional action did congress act and therefore occupy field (which again arguably yes since it defined insurrection and provided a process / penalty for the crime).
All of those questions are before you get to the merits (ie did Trump engage in an insurrection, were Trump’s statements protected by the first amendment).
That is, the argument advanced in toto is betting on hitting an inside straight flush (ie it has to win on numerous arguments; rebuttal on one). The infirmity of that legal position heavily suggests the argument is bogus and prudentially SCOTUS needs to nip this in the proverbial bud on procedural grounds.
zeke5123
10mo ago
I had this argument at the time. I was arguing what you said (more eloquently compared to what I said). But it was quite clear that the court was acting in the way of a court of equity allowing a wrong to be orderly stopped as opposed to creating chaos. Then, Biden acting in bad faith to try to exploit a gap. Unique to my knowledge in this kind of bad faith flouting of the constitutional order.
zeke5123
10mo ago
It is such a strange belief.
-
It is saying in effect society writ large matters but micro cultures don’t matter. That is, the overall structure of society causes some groups to fail but an individual group culture is at best orthogonal to success. That is an extraordinary claim.
-
It assumes that genetics apply for individuals but not groups despite clearly there being a genetic difference between groups (eg whites and Asians look different). Again this is an extraordinary claim.
So to believe that difference in group outcome is proof of discrimination relies upon two extraordinary claims.
I don’t think liberty is absolute. It is possible that a pandemic could in theory justify things like stay at home orders.
Florida may not have gone “open” right away but they shifted policy two months in once they realized covid was not one that justified the extreme restrictions — 2 months was extremely quick and showed (1) an understanding of the virus and (2) a presumption more in favor of freedom instead of safety. Florida basically adopted the GBD specifically focusing on targeted protection noting the differential death rate. There is a reason he was labeled Deathsantis. Also, if you go back and listen to RDS during this time you’ll realize he actually had a deep understanding of the facts. He wasn’t just making a political decision.
DeSantis within six months prohibited local restrictions and had kids back in school. That was very different compared to most of the country.
Re PA, I can’t speak to every day life. We were looking at buying a house in eastern PA / NJ early 2021. Due to covid restrictions we weren’t allowed to physical view houses in PA since we weren’t PA residents. Philly schools didn’t return to in person learning until Aug 2021 and then were required to mask. That is a full one school year later and with stupid masks compared to Florida. So no, it was not basically the same. It was much worse. I think you live in the Pittsburgh area. They didn’t unveil plans to go back to in person learning until June 2021.
There is a weird revisionist history where people pretend all states were pretty much the same. No. Florida was much more open and much sooner compared to most states. I was in Florida multiple times during the pandemic. It was entirely different compared to the northeast. There is a reason there was a mass exodus to Florida. Where I am in NJ didn’t get “normal” until 2022. That is at best basically 1.5 years after Florida. Look I was deep into covid policy at the time. You can’t make me misremember what happened. I know you are on the left and the left was terrible on covid so the left is trying to retcon all of this (see Gavin Newsome). Won’t work on me. I lived and live in NJ. I visited Florida a lot (almost moved there despite buying recently in NJ). It was radically different.
Trump wielded a lot of power since a lot of nonsense derived from the CDC. Trump could’ve fired Collins. He could have fired Fauci. He could’ve not side lined Atlas (if you read Atlas’s book, you’ll see that Trump seemed to agree with Atlas but lacked the courage to implement his messaging in full).
Finally crisis reveals character. I don’t need to know about how a leader does when the sun shines. I need to know how he does in crisis. DeSantis wasn’t brash but at the same time was willing to take a very different tact compared to the narrative based on a clear understanding of the facts and a freedom oriented perspective. He passed the test with flying colors when many others failed (if you want happy to pull up detailed stats on it).
More options
Context Copy link