I thought it was pretty obvious, and don't detect any snark.
A business/industry gets subsidies and is able to grow faster than it would have or just simply grow where nothing would before. Those businesses are then subject to taxes which the government collects and puts to use, which then benefits the populace at large.
Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes. And businesses pay very little tax in the first place. Finally, tax revenue isn’t an ownership stake in a company; no amount of money is.
> Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes.
But the point of a subsidy is to create a business where one did not, possibly could not exist before. Therefore the tax revenue coming from companies created by subsidies is in addition to other businesses tax revenue, not replacing it.
It’s really not all that obvious to me. In particular you’re saying the reason to hand SpaceX nearly a billion is so I can do business with them faster because the subsidy reduces their time to market? If so, that’s a bogus argument in my opinion. I’d prefer a more direct mechanism like ownership and profit sharing. There is plenty of venture capitalists out there, if we can float WeWork, I’m sure there’s people who can float SpaceX and other perhaps more valuable to society businesses.
well first you have to imagine, what is a gain from holding stake? At the end of the day, is it really a claim on future profits? Maybe more reasonably just a stock that you can trade/sell for money. And what does one do with that money? Buy things I guess to increase your welfare.
Tax expenditure in the ideal setting would be spent on clean water, education, etc. things that increase your welfare. And successful companies paying lots of taxes hopefully increase the welfare of a country.
So it is kind of like taxes emulate welfare increase...is the way I see it.
I leave you with an anecdote about him: once he was teaching a lecture and a student’s button was missing. He struggled to teach/cancelled the course and admitted the irritation was intense because of the button. My other philology friend told me.
Strange and interesting, makes me humanize and think about him in a different context.
But the part describing the teacher who wanted to kill the child was the funniest chapter of a book I’ve ever read. And I recommend this book based only on this one chapter.
I have never seen this kind of comedy in a book. Maybe something like it’s always sunny in Philadelphia or futurama comes slightly close. But I’ve never laughed out loud from a book like that.
I think this X-factor, happiness co-efficient or what not...that we see top athletes (who had a natural talent just like other athletes) talk about, which gives them that small edge that lets them be the absolute best instead of just, pretty good at a sport. This kind of makes me think of luck as a quality. I wonder if Big HR FANG companies are "watching" their employees trying to find this X-Factor in a quantitative way.
Would be cool trying to think of "work projects" or experiments to find those with X-Factors.
Thought you might like this one: A Geometric Analysis of Five Moral Principles (OUP 2017)
Ethics using vectors or from a description of the technique: The geometric approach derives its normative force from the Aristotelian dictum that we should “treat like cases alike.” The more similar a pair of cases are, the more reason do we have to treat the cases alike. These similarity relations can be analyzed and represented geometrically. In such a geometric representation, the distance in moral space between cases reflects their degree of similarity. The more similar a pair of cases are from a moral point of view, the shorter is the distance between them.
https://github.com/kyle10n/ascii_project