Muchos "libertarios" en mi TL diciendo idioteces sobre impuestos y sobre Irlanda. Vamos a aclarar algunas cosas básicas
1. Los impuestos no son un robo. La riqueza que tienen los "libertarios" depende de la existencia de un sistema que reconoce y defiende la propiedad y la libertad: policía, jueces, ejército. Sin ellos, somos bandas de monos robando y siendo robados
2. El valor de tu casa no lo debe a tu increíble trabajo y a tu inteligencia. Lo debe al ayuntamiento que ha construido una calle para llegar y la mantiene limpia y segura, a que otros ciudadanos han decidido vivir allí porque el país prospera.
3. Nada es gratis. Las cosas que necesitan nuestros países para prosperar, las calles seguras, el aire limpio, no se pueden generar por el mercado. Sin bienes públicos en sentido estricto, ni se puede excluir a nadie de su uso, ni se agotan cuando otros los usan.
4. Luego los impuestos son necesarios. El nivel, por supuesto, es debatible. Es notorio que a mí me parece que hay mucho desperdicio en las administraciones y que, en particular, sobra un nivel (diputaciones). Pero hacen falta. Y las leyes al respecto deben cumplirse
5. Si estamos de acuerdo en que son necesarios, debemos estar de acuerdo en que no podemos permitir que haya países que se dedican a desviar la recaudación fiscal de otros países hacia ellos para permitir que haya personas o empresas que evadan sus obligaciones
6. Por ejemplo: en Irlanda se paga si se tiene a los administradores de una empresa. En EEUU de paga si hay residencia fiscal. Moraleja: basemos la empresa en Irlanda,dejemos a los ejecutivos en EEUU, y no pagamos en ningún sitio
7. Escribo sobre este tipo de comportamientos en "El dilema de España", con ejemplos concretos y referencias. Ayer puse nuevos datos del economista que mejor conoce el tema que apuntan en la misma dirección
8. Los eslóganes chorras y mal informados, con apoyo de economistas que deberían saber de lo que hablan contribuyen poco al debate. No, Irlanda no tiene un enorme GDP. Irlanda usa el GNI porque su GDP es un sinsentido precisamente por esta razón en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_…
9. Y no, no es "de Podemos" el pedir que personas y empresas cumplan sus obligaciones sin que haya países que les ayuden a evitarlo. Lo liberal es en el imperio de la ley "no taxation without representation", no "no taxation". Menores impuestos, pero no qué la gente haga trampas
Explicación de @EnriqueFeas del double Irish y demás ingeniería financiera. No, No consiste en tipos bajos. Consiste en múltiples falsedades contables permitidas por esos paraísos para evadir la imposición. Vía @frdelatorreamp.vozpopuli.com/opinion/parais…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Live from Palo Alto! "The Economics of Transformative AI" @nberpubs workshop. I will be trying to live tweet (mega jet lagged--flew from HKG--, so I really hope I can keep it up) the papers presented. Watch this thread
Here is the fantastic line up nber.org/conferences/ec…
Intro talk from Agrawal, Korinec and Brynjolfsson. The assignment: lets not discuss if transformative AI will or not happen. Instead, lets assume it is going going to happen and draw the consequences for makets and the economy.
Paper 1: Agrawal–Goldfarb–Gans, "Genius on Demand: The Value of Transformative AI"
Q: If “genius” is on tap (Einstein level intelligence), what is this worth—and how does it get allocated ?
A: Paper argues in the short run, human geniuses specialise in questions that are furthest from existing knowledge, where their comparative advantage over AI is greatest. In the long run, routine workers may stay at the edges and eventually be completely displaced as AI efficiency approaches human genius efficiency.
There is widespread sense AI adoption is slowing down and productivity gains are hard to get. Is it true? Why? I just attended the inaugural conference of the Center for AI, Management and Organizations at Hong Kong University. A thread on insights.
1/17
A general answer before going deep in: firm adoption of GenAI is widespread, but it is shallow, and barely profitable. An often repeated point was that only a small minority of firms are seeing P&L impact. Data from a Deloitte&CAMO survey of 109 top executives: 2/17
Executives say they overestimated expected financial returns from AI implementation.
At launch, many expected strong ROI but outcomes disappointed. 45% reported returns below expectations; only 10% exceeded them.
3/17
1/10 Good news on AI could be bad news for Europe's debt.
A boom in AI-driven productivity could end decades of slow growth. But for Europe, this silver lining may hide a fiscal storm cloud. Here’s why.
2/10
The key is the global real interest rate, r*. Think of it as the price that clears the world's market for assets. For 70+ years, high demand for assets from savers and slowing productivity has kept r* low. This is about to reverse. siliconcontinent.com/p/r-without-g
3/10
AI changes the game.
It boosts the supply of assets (higher profits, huge data center investments) and lowers demand (richer future generations save less).
More supply + less demand = lower asset prices, which means higher interest rates.
Let's not kid ourselves: Europe can't compete on compute.
- Energy costs 2-3x more than in US.
- Permitting makes building anything a nightmare.
- We lack tech ecosystem.
Catching up in model-building is delusional.
An alternative: Europe can be a smart second mover.
🧵1/10
Nobody knows who will capture the value created by AI: could be chips (NVIDIA), manufacturing (TSMC/ASML), models (OpenAI), or implementation layer.
What we do have:
- 450 million consumers in a (semi-)unified market.
- Top companies in manufacturing, pharma, automotive. - A highly educated workforce.
The question isn't how to build models - it's how to ensure the value stays at the implementation stage. 3/10
1/@EpochAIResearch doubles down on preiction AI will drive 20%+ annual GDP growth. Economists remain skeptical.
This is the defining debate of today: AI builders see infinite prosperity ahead. Economists see the same limits that constrained every technological revolution.🧵 1/13
2/The economists' core insight, which Epoch misses, is that progress works itself out of a job.
The more successful a technology becomes, the less it matters economically. Revolutionary technologies shrink their own importance precisely through their success. Larry Summers:
3/Consider history's greatest productivity miracle: artificial light.
In 1800, one hour of reading light cost more than a day's wages. By the 1990s, we produced the same light using 1/3,000th the energy. The price fell 40,000x.
1/10 🧵 @masuch_klaus have written a post arguing the late 2010s QE was a big mistake. The debate sounds technical--central banks sold is as technical fine-tuning. But it's massive fiscal policy by unelected officials, creating perverse incentives and wealth transfers.
2/10 Fiscal consequences: QE transforms government debt structure. When central banks buy long-term bonds and pay with overnight reserves, they swap fixed-rate debt for floating-rate debt. The state suddenly owes money at today's rates, not yesterday's.siliconcontinent.com/p/the-hidden-c…
3/10 Example: Government issues €100bn in 10-year bonds at 1%. Central bank buys them, creates overnight reserves. When rates hit 3%, annual costs triple from €1bn to €3bn. ECB's €5 trillion portfolio lost ~€650bn when rates rose. Taxpayers absorbed the duration risk.