Problem with Ackman is he thinks he's doing God's work by shorting Herbalife, but in reality if he wanted to "do good" himself he would have gone to law school and taken up the cases themselves (pro bono likely), or pay lawyers to take it on. Maybe the exploited customers would have even won a larger class action. Even though he showed a human side, Ackman failed at doing what he's supposed to do which is invest other people's money.
He might say he's shorting for a good cause, but we don't know if that's true. From what we know of his Valeant involvement, there's nothing indicating that his investment decisions are based on morality.
(Based on how much money he's lost, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's hard to say exactly what else his investment decisions are based on.)
Or live wisely so you have the financial means and health to move you and your family elsewhere when need arrives, probably in our lifetimes for 80% of the world.
Right. That's arguably the prudent take on "party hearty". There's always the tension between "do fun stuff now when you can enjoy it most" and "save for later when you'll have more free time and less likely income".
Ah understood. You were looking at the national level with countries like China and Russia "party[ing] hearty" by not significantly curbing C02 emissions. Those individuals who benefit directly from oil and coal (as they do in the US) will extract gains and use it to pad offshore bank accounts. Meanwhile the rest of us should take a prudent life and be prepared for shocks ahead (like land and cost of living soaring in climate-friendly cities). On a more personal level, ideally savers find ways to extract more late-life enjoyment out of their deferred-enjoyment lifestyles.
The US is still partying hard. At least, relative to much of Western Europe. Much of Eastern Europe still has too much inefficient Soviet-era infrastructure. And yes, China has had slack in most climate agreements.
Exactly. The comparison to non-US based projects is inadequate. California and other US states need to "earn the right" to spend this much money on one single monstrous project by proving it can handle smaller projects with 100% cost accuracy. BART extensions, LA Metro Rail and projects in the smaller cities should have near 1-to-1 precision in planning cost to implementation, before going after the big kahuna. Jerry Brown wanted to galvanize the population but instead it has bred cynicism state and nation-wide. Oh, and it will cost over $100 billion in taxpayer dollars before it's completed.
> The comparison to non-US based projects is inadequate
Can you explain why? For example comparing NYC's subway to Paris' subway. Why would one be more expensive than the other, since I don't think the base cost are that different
(I'm not from the US, I'm just trying to understand your point)
I think there are just a lot of intangibles so it's hard to compare mega projects, like the existing state of the subway where it is integrating into (like extensions), how many stations are being added, cost of labor, etc. I think comparing dozens of similar projects like the cost of replacing one street light, overpass or kilometer of highway from a non-US project, or even better within a single city in the same country, would be more informative.
Ditto, was in Berlin recently and was very impressed by the taxi service. The taxi driver slowed down and asked us if we needed a ride, was patient when we got out our address on our phones for the AirBnB, and even suggested a faster route. He gave us a detailed explanation of the cultural sites in the area. €11.80 to take two people with 4 luggage bags about 5 kilometers.
The GBT is 94 miles, right? I think the Swiss achieve these costs through economies of scale. There are tunnels throughout the country so they can achieve greater efficiencies at 5-10x of those in specific metro areas in the US.
I remember when they were debating a tunnel under Tysons Corner in Virginia, the largest office park in the Washington-Baltimore area, the estimate came in at $800 miles for 4 miles and was considered cost-prohibitive. It'd be great to bundle a number of these projects together to achieve the efficiencies of scale.
FWIW, a surprising amount of the base tunnel was blasted by dynamite, as the geology didn't allow use of TBMs everywhere. (And they hit more cases where they had to blast it than they expected.)
And the person who bought the home in Palo Alto in 1981 is only paying 1/5 of the property taxes as the person in a comparable home who bought recently. California is really the epitome of having a tax code favoring land owners and the older generation over those relatively new to the job market.
True, but there is definitely a lot of staying power in those currently of retirement age, kicking the can down the road, with a growing proportion of the population over age 65 (20% in 2020 versus 9% in 1970) receiving the benefits of Social Security and Medicare which are largely unfunded.
There will have to be a number of cut-backs in retirement benefits for future retirees, including means-testing, removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions, and higher Medicare premiums.
The reason there is a maximum on Social Security contributions and no means testing is that it is strongly marketed politically as a universal retirement account. Many of the system's characteristic are designed to ensure this perception. You receive Social Security roughly proportional to your contribution. This positioning is very important to the political support because there is the pretense of having earned it.
If you remove the cap on contribution and/or means test the receipt then that pretense is gone. Politically, it becomes explicitly a welfare system for people that did not save for retirement and penalizes those that do save. Once Social Security is perceived as "unearned" it becomes an acceptable target for reduction or elimination to the population at large.
Social Security is in fact a welfare tax and no one is entitled to receive it (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor) but its political viability is dependent on the popular perception to the contrary.
> You receive Social Security roughly proportional to your contribution.
Well, its a monotonically increasing function of your contributions, but its not proportional to them, because of the bend points.
> If you remove the cap on contribution and/or means test the receipt then that pretense is gone.
Means testing might arguably do that in theory (except that it empirically doesn't in practice, as SS is, in fact, already means-tested via the rules for taxability), but how does removing the contribution cap so long as further contributions above the old cap still contribute to the benefit calculation?
People are dumb and don't pay close attention. I say raise the contribution cap, but don't means test it. That way everyone is still "paying in" and "getting back" the way they are now, but the extraordinarily wealthy will pay in much more than they receive. The average voter will continue to see SS as something "earned" rather than the entitlement program it [already] is.
> removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions, and higher Medicare premiums.
Ahh! So the question is, at what point will Millenials (myself included, at the older end of the spectrum at 32) say "f* it" when we're paying Europe-level taxes with third world country benefits
* Single-payer Medicare for retires, expensive private insurance for everyone else
* Social security essentially becomes a basic income for retirees, as its not an account that can be depleted but an entitlement until death, supported by younger workers with terrible job prospects and long hours at low pay
Maybe the problem is that no one saves enough anymore, but that's because no one makes enough to save because most new income/wealth is kept by the very top wealth bracket.
You already do pay Europe level taxes - or should I say we do. Add up what you spend on all your taxes, state and Federal, look at medicare, SS your health insurance and other fees. Look at sales tax, property tax (even if you rent it is built in) and the various "fees" we have for things.
Subtract all of this from your income and look at most of Western Europe and you'll see we pay roughly the same overall.
I agree most people don't save enough. Part of it is people buy a lot of things they don't really need but "deserve" and the other is as you said.
Why does that count employee social security contributions, but not employer contributions? Both ultimately come out of your paycheck. The fact that social security contributions are split is just a fiction that makes the tax rate look lower.
It also sounds like it doesn't count state and local income taxes, nor property taxes or any of the many other taxes we have the privilege of paying.
The conclusion may well be correct, but the data presented doesn't seem to be nearly complete enough to support it.
It's specifically a cost of labor. The business spends $X on you as an employee, and you receive $Y. The difference between X and Y is tax. The fact that some of the difference is technically removed before the money is transferred to you, and some of it is technically removed after the money is transferred, makes no difference in the end.
I think the "fundamental difference" is key. I don't ultimately see any real difference between taking 12.4% of my pay (under $118,500) for Social Security, and taking a variable percentage of my pay for government operations in general. It's money, based on a percentage of what I earn, that goes to the government, i.e. an income tax.
> removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions
This sounds like a great idea to me. It's absurd that only the first $118,500 of earnings are subject to to social security tax, and it means that our tax structure is much less progressive than it appears at first glance (which is one reason certain people strenuously avoid talking about any taxes except Federal Income Taxes).
It's not absurd: Social Security's benefits formula has significant "bend points" that make it an increasingly bad "investment" for higher income workers. Eliminating the wage cap would remove any remaining fig leaf covering its essentially redistributive nature: High income workers would have to live to 140 to get back what they "paid in" even without interest.
Why do we need to keep a fig leaf to cover up what everybody already knows is there? We should either accept that Social Security is a form of welfare and rationalize it accordingly (my preference) or we should overhaul it to actually be the mandated savings scheme that it's said to be.
Because welfare isn't popular, it makes it more subject to the political climate, and because as a mandated savings scheme, social security isn't terribly performant.
That is nonsense. The first social security recipients paid 0 in. SS has always been a redistribution from workers to retirees, with no actuarial basis for the connection between how much you put it and how much you get out.
> The gigantic tech companies are always complaining they can't find 'good people'.
The "can't find good people" argument can usually be solved either 1) raising the pay, or 2) increasing the labor pool (i.e. H1B, etc). Raising the pay is what is done in finance because it's harder to make the argument that the required "skills" are lacking in the labor pool. To enter investment banking, and then private equity, it often only requires a B.A. in French literature and willingness to work 90 hours.
The "supply problem of engineers" is the great lie of our industry of our time.
I guarantee if dev positions paid as much as medicine or ibanking you'd have more devs. Not necessarily really good devs, but certainly people who pass the Ivy + 1600 SAT sniff test and can memorize the SAT book of Google interview questions.
It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years).
When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.
Having children (and being married) is a tool for survival in harsh environments. Conversely, it can be seen as a trap/burden from a legal and financial perspective in a 'developed' country.
Interesting! It's almost as if we've evolved out the need to have children (no need for free hands working the fields, the ability to have sex for recreation instead of procreation, and children typically providing limited financial return compared to their historical role).
A little known facet of German society is that it is (or rather was) extremely hostile to mothers working. Even if a German couple wanted to have children (desirability), the sacrifices were sometimes too great. Especially as raising a family on one salary is becoming harder and harder, if not outright impossible.
Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.
> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term
It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.
If you assume a developed country, you have an attractive place to live for many people from other badly developed countries. So you can simply import them.
I think he means there's a difference between births arising from couples in love, as opposed to births arising either by accident or from couples bound by other arrangments forced out of motives of survival, hence the qualifier being a "lover's birth rate."
As for quantifying which births are "lover's" births, and which are not, well... good luck with that.
If your goal is to live in comfort after you're too old to work, then having lots of children is often the best way to accomplish that in a crappy country. Odds are good at least one of them will survive and do well enough to support you when you're old.
In a nicer place with better finance and social security systems, you can pull it off without having a lot of children.
I'm pretty sure that it's determined by optimism about the future. Germans think that the next generation will have it about the same or even slightly worse than them.
The Greatest Generation were absolutely positive that the future was going to be very bright once they returned home from the war, hence the baby boom and baby boomers.
Once you account for access to contraceptives, etc. (i.e. once childbearing becomes a choice), I think this is largely what determines the birthrate, which is why most efforts to 'engineer' a higher birthrate have been so futile.
