Conversation

Replying to
Mechanics tricky, if he prices below market, the market will buy/sell enough of his stake in the forced stake sale to get to the new “lower Elon factored” price. Elon stans will buy more, Elon-skeptics will sell more. New equilibrium will be an Elon-diluted new price.
1
5
If he prices *above* market for tax otoh, he’ll have to sell enough *at market* to pay his tax bill, to hold on to rest. Meaning he believes more in the company than the public does. Which is what we want. Either his control is diluted or public gets unrealized-gains tax revenue.
1
4
Hmm.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr and @interfluidity
This mechanism is one of the core concepts of Glen Weyl’s radicalXchange project, he has a few examples of where it’s being tried radicalxchange.org/concepts/parti
1
5
Potential objection/theory of adverse consequences. A chance it could increase inequality if mechanism is poorly tuned?
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr and @interfluidity
Rich would overassess and pay more taxes in order to avoid losing valuable appreciating assets. Poorest asset owners would have financial pressure to price low in order to save cash on tax, thereby giving underpriced options to the rich. Tax revenue and inequality go up.
1
13
Another practical problem, but I think expanded tax revenue can cover the infrastructure cost delta too. The whole point is to combat the social cost of lots of frozen assets that don’t pay refrigeration costs.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
It isn't that simple. The cost on local infrastructure from a single family space that is converted to a SIX family space is extreme, with basically all of the US, infrastructure past its' due date. So who pays for the sewer, water, power, transport, services and eco impact?
1
2
In general, we seem to be in a situation where the wealthy are unreasonably confident that wealth is in fact managed well and that “inequality” is a socialist concern. Old Money and New Money compete in zero-sum ways politically with each other rather than to make markets better.
1
8
Inequality is not primarily a socialist concern. It’s a capitalist one. More unequal societies lock up more capital for longer periods as unproductive inefficient rents for failsons. Ideally wealth would be distributed in proportion to ambition to intelligently grow it.
2
22
The point of wealth is to create more wealth via intelligent risk-taking based on newest technological options. Both failsons and too-fearful middle-class/poor are bad at this, but the former cost everybody else a lot more. The latter mainly hurt themselves with risk-aversion.
2
5
Replying to
I’m reminded of how, when Castro decided to expropriate American-owned properties in Cuba, he offered to compensate them at the absurdly low prices they had valued their properties at for taxation purposes under the Batista regime. Naturally, they were outraged.
1
5