Conversation

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
If growing wealth (in a broad Buckminster Fuller sense) were not necessary to combat entropy, we could just dispense with growth and solve for sustainability directly. The general socialist mistake is thinking civilization can be stabilized at zero growth. No, it grows or dies.
1
15
But the growth doesn’t have to come at high social and environmental costs. You can get to “more and more for less and less” in terms of energy, clean air, water, etc. But for this you can’t stay contented with current mechanisms as ideal because you win easily.
3
6
Or you have a grace period where you can simply pay property tax difference on highest serious bid. Match-or-sell deal. Bidder loses a bidding fee in proportion to their bid, to prevent frivolity.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr and @interfluidity
This sounds neat on the surface, but what it really means is I'd have to claim a value of my house sufficient to avoid the giant hassle of being forced to go through selling it and finding another place to live. That's obviously much higher than it's actual value.
Replying to
That’s why you put a cost in bidding as well.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
One challenge is that some things do not have a clear “market” value as they are much more valuable to the current owner than the market, which makes the owner vulnerable to griefing. Eg, a house you live in, or the Google .com domain.
1
2
Replying to
Having the bids be binding with no contingencies should be enough to prevent frivolity. I wonder if this scheme would raise or lower property values in non-prop 13 markets.
1