I'm always a little thrown off whenever someone doesn't address a core piece of something I've written with actual evidence of their own, but talks about how immature and obviously false the piece is, and then when I ask for clarification says I'm stupid if I'm even asking
Like cool story bro but maybe you're the one who's arrogant and childish
My next favorite is someone who refuses to state their disagreement to a fundamentally empirical question in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis
They're always invoking their own personal and professional experience and intuitions and never willing to formulate what kind of evidence would convince them to change their minds
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I cannot stop thinking about the fact that Kazakhstan and Alexandra Elkabyan exist in a sufficient state to put them beyond the reach of established IP enforcers is responsible for a greater contribution to the advancement of human knowledge than billions of dollars in funding
The deadweight loss that has been lifted by the existence of Sci-Hub is so large as to literally be uncalculable, there is so much extremely necessary research that simply could not be done without it and it all depends on Central Asia thumbing its nose at IP treaties
If anything ever happens to this precious woman every academic needs to announce a general strike
Based on feedback, there are 3 general objections to Georgism that I feel are worth rigorously researching and addressing.
1. Georgism encourages paving the earth in the name of profit 2. The transition to Georgism is too costly 3. Georgism is politically unviable
I'd like to register for the record that I don't have fully formed opinions on these just yet! For instance, I was first introduced to Georgism by a friend and mentor of mine, and 1. is actually his chief concern with it (for which he makes various modifications).
2 & 3 are kind of tied up in the same general point, and basically rely on finding case studies and examining them in detail.
I think the general point to be made here is that way more radical things than Maximum Georgism have been pulled off before.
"What do you think of the studies?"
"They're wrong, here, look at my thought experiment."
"I'm willing to believe they might be flawed. What was flawed about their methodologies that made you distrust their conclusions?"
"They're wrong, here, look at my thought experiment."
"Your first study is flawed because reasons."
"I disagree but let's grant you that anyways. I included multiple studies for this reason. What do you think of the other dozen studies?"
"Your first study is flawed because reasons."
I am very, very, very tired of people slinging theory back at each other ALL DAY without being willing to be pinned down to scenarios in which we're willing to be proven wrong to each other. I will abandon Georgism in a heartbeat if you can reliably prove it's predictions false.
In part 2 of my Georgism series, Wyatt, the sole critical paper I could find, cited an elusive paper by Hagman. An intrepid reader sent me a copy, and we’re already of to a great start as it opens with a fictional letter to the author concerning a report on Land Value Tax on Mars
The Secretary of Space is now writing to Henry George III and giving him orders from the President of the United States to set up the colony of New Chicago on the planet of Mars at a location scouted by Colonel John Glen II
Basic Martian land tax policy is to first establish a budget, and then raise that amount of money from land rents and no more. This is basically identical to the policy Ted Gwartney supports, and probably falls well short of 100% LVT in this scenario
"Here's why I think X is true"
"No, it's obviously wrong"
"Here's an exhaustive literature review with widespread empirical research that strongly suggests its true"
"No it's obviously wrong"
"Why"
"It's obvious"
"Are you going to engage with the cited sources?"
"No it's obvious"
Look I am not the smartest guy in the world and I am often wrong about things -- sometimes even *provably* wrong -- but please at least make an effort here sheesh
Point out some flaws in the studies. Question the evidence, kick the methodology in the nuts. But please do SOMETHING other than just continue to assert nothing but your own theories over and over again
Some people say Land is not an important thing in the economy. The evidence says otherwise, read this thread for more.
I have five testable hypotheses for whether land is a "really big deal" or not:
1. Most of the value of urban real estate is land 2. America's land rents equal a sizable % of government spending 3. Land represents a significant % of all major bank loans
...
4. Land represents a significant % of all gross personal assets 5. Land ownership is highly concentrated among the wealthy