Now, this is different from what you've claimed, which is about the effect on science itself rather than the credibility of scientists to the public. But I believe the study only showed short-term effects. In my view, long-term political advocacy is likely to make people view scientists differently than they view them now.
The counter-counter-argument is that if you don't decouple the "doing of the scientific research" from "influencing human choices", you might compromise the endeavor of scientific research altogether.
The same institutions don't need to do both, and that they are separate is usually because "is" questions and "ought" questions are answered via different mechanisms.
> The counter-counter-argument is that if you don't decouple the "doing of the scientific research" from "influencing human choices", you might compromise the endeavor of scientific research altogether.
I don't disagree with you. Put more concretely, I think we need a blend of:
1. Allowing scientific concensus to influence the choices we make today. We should act on our current best knowledge of the world.
2. Allowing politics and our understanding of what humans need today to influence the way we allocate scientific resources. Critical problems and promising solutions should be given some priority because they have the greatest chance of improving people's lives.
3. Funding "pure" scientific research where we have no idea if it will pan out or not. 2 is biased because we don't have a perfect understanding of what research will pan out. Without some random resource allocation we will only hill-climb to the nearest local maxima of things we know are improvements. Sprinkling some fraction of our resources outside of obvious priorities allows paradigm shifts and serendipity, which are vital for progress on longer timescales.
I think a lot of science nerds, especially here, focus on 3, and I agree that it's important and undervalued. But I think it's highly inefficient to only do that. Smart resource allocation does give greater weight to areas with greater probability of success, and to areas that provide the most benefit.
The Expanse also has UBI on earth. With it, most people still lack opportunity and live a rather destitute, powerless life.
Seems like a pretty good perdition of our future, really. UBI recipients with no labor of value to offer won't have power to change their government for long.
It's unfortunate that the authoritarian future of Star Trek probably wouldn't lead to paradise. Or at least, that's how our culture's view of the future has changed.
Both fictions are a product of their time. I still wish we had the optimism of Star Trek now.
But in some way it may still influence the future.
If the negative aspect of the future portrayed in the Expanse are culturally absorbed, then there is a strong possibility that the people dreaming of and building the future could see that as a road sign to help them avoid that future.
E.g. it makes the point that we would need to work out ways to create better habitats in space and to concentrate on making a workable biosphere where enough food can be cultivated and raised (yes, cows in space) to survive.
In The Expanse, the main reason for complaint from earthers seems to be caused by overpopulation which leads to difficulty in obtaining realestate and the benefits that landownership brings.
If UBI was implemented as in The Expanse (food, shelter, and meds are free), I would expect the population of the earth to plummet. The UBI would allow for more people to pursue learning and educating others. It has been shown that when people feel safe from threat of violence and starvation, and when they are more educated, the desire to breed decreases.
On the flip side, perhaps knowing that you are off the hook for paying for the expense of many children would increase the desire to reproduce?
Was it really shown? Is there a single country that did not replace stress of violence and starvation with economic stress? Do we have at least one larger example of what would happen if the general population was rich?
> Do we have at least one larger example of what would happen if the general population was rich?
We have birth rate comparison between "first world" and "third world" countries plus migration experience studies (basically, even one generation after migration from a poor to a rich country, there is a massive drop in birth rate, and after something like 3 generations the birth rate is equal to the rest of the country).
Additionally, there is a noticeable drop in birth rates when a whole country gets richer.
What country are you talking about? I don't know a single one where the majority does not feel financially stressed with too many children. (usually more than 3, but even 2 is too much for a lot of people, in many countries for the majority, probably including the United States).
Star Trek's society is collectivist (as all societies are, to a degree), but is it authoritarian?
I suspect that summarizing collectivism as authoritarian is like summarizing libertarianism as selfish: they go well together, but you can also get one without the other.
I don't know Star Trek very well, but as a utopia I guess they imagine a form of collectivism that largely preserves individual freedom? Of course most of the show centers on Starfleet, an authoritarian organisation like any military, which doesn't tell much about the whole society.
Anything said about libertarianism is necessarily hypothetical, because it has never happened. If it ever did, it would instantly dissolve into something certain to be very unpleasant for almost everyone.
It happened in the United States before the first world war, and continued for a few decades after that. Pretty long time to be called "immediately". While it was unpleasant from our current POV, it was way better than anything else at that time, and didn't end because it dissolved, but because the world wars needed funding.
I see that you are not up on the Sherman Antitrust Act. Go ahead, I'll wait.
The 1890s demonstrated what a Libertarian regime would dissolve into, instantly: Absolute rule by the biggest dog. It has happened myriad times in human history, from all kinds of pre-conditions. We were lucky, 130 years ago, that the armed forces still believed in voting. Not sure they still do...
Hmm. Are you sure you understand libertarianism? I’m also unsure of your claim here about “libertarianism” dissolving into something unpleasant. Unpleasant in what way? Why would it “dissolve”?
Trek is a mirror of Earth geopolitics from an American perspective in whichever year the show was written.
TOS-TNG: Klingons were Soviet-Russian, Romans were Chinese, the Federation was sexist (but much less so in TNG than in TOS) and pretended gay people didn’t even exist.
DS9: Lesbians and trans people exist, but only as exotic outsiders. Bajor feels inspired by Tibeten Buddhism and the final parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles.
VOY: ???
ENT: Nostalgia gone wrong followed by 9/11
DIS/PIC: Oh no Cold War enemies are a threat again / Oh no A.I.
Some doctors will prescribe it for off-label use, but this is pretty rare. It's possible to purchase it from overseas websites as it is not scheduled, but this is technically not legal, and it will still cost quite a bit out-of-pocket. With that said, it can definitely be potentially dangerous, and dosing+frequency would have to carefully be paid attention to, as well as monitoring results via blood tests imo, and having done extensive research and so on. I wouldn't suggest anyone just purchases it to experiment with it without being very careful and having a high appetite for risk. But other things like glycine or spermadine or vitamin D or magnesium I'm much happier to gleefully suggest to people.
I personally don't buy that NR does much. I think there's some interesting hints that we're getting close to finding out useful things, but I haven't found much that personally convinced me about NR and those related to it. Agree with what I hear on podcasts like Peter Attia about it, but I think maybe some day soon we'll find something promising in that area.
It's a hard area to give advice in since everyone is different, so I can't really offer much besides that I think for the best return, someone has to spend a lot of time doing their own research and testing and so on to find out what works for them
> Many people can self-learn. Those same people often cannot perform well in school because school is rigid and authoritarian.
So... labor isn't uniform?
> Doubling down on debt and the system with another advanced degree is anti-advice.
Becoming a medical doctor is anti-advice? Is attending Harvard Law or Stanford's CS PhD program also anti-advice? I know this is a tech forum, but jeeze. The lack of appreciation for the world of fulfilling career choices outside pounding out code and managing people who pound out code is a bit concerning.
I guess there's a small population of people who aren't good at school but can self-learn how to program. I agree that for those people a DIY CS degree is good advice.
However, I also think that there's a substantial intersection between people who would get bored doing generic software dev and people who can self-learn CS.
> Many people can self-learn. Those same people often cannot perform well in school because school is rigid and authoritarian.
Are you still talking about college here? For a lot of classes, I commonly skipped class and taught myself the topics. In some fields like math that was practically the system even if you attended: Step 1: attend lectures that go too fast and lose you at some point, providing little more than a roadmap to use. Step 2 go home and teach the material to yourself. Step 3 attend exams to quantify how well you did.
i've seen this comment a couple times on HN and find it funny. My classes and lectures were mostly about what was not in the book and if you tried to read the book and take the test you'd get around a 50%.
Apparently a huge percentage of people have it, especially in developing countries but not limited to them, and it is known to cause a lot of problems though there is debate about possible benefits of it.
There is a sort of cure for it involving proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. After which, your stomach feels a ton better and your probability of stomach cancer likely decreased.
I had chronic stomach aches since I returned from a long traveling in Thailand. Only recently did I apply this treatment. I've never had such great stomach health.
This was self-diagnosed and treated. I know what many on hacker news thinks about non-experts talking about these sorts of things in recent months. I think that's absurd.
Help yourself because no one else is more invested in your health.
Same here. I have had various problems with my stomach and eventually diagnosed with H. Pylori. I went through a 10 day treatment with a lot of antibiotics and since then my stomach haven't ever bothered me again.
I went through the research papers on the subject and didn't find any indication that one treatment listed in the table did a whole lot better than another combination. Eradication rates seem to be between 70-95 percent depending on the claim of the paper which seems to be in range of likely errors with each paper.
The proton pump inhibitors are over the counter in the US but antibiotics are not (though they are in many other countries). It's a shame that the US is so restrictive here.
This problem was created by social media by choosing which articles to show in your news feed based on engagement. That is, how much you'll emotionally react to it.
The solution is not to add another layer of "fact checking". That's super dubious.
Get rid of what got us here.
News feeds organized by engagement are evil. Dismantling them would solve both the production and consumption of emotion driven information.
Traditional news media is also organized by engagement: an entire department is responsible for picking the home page of a newspaper and importance of each story.
The reason it became so pronounced is that social media got very good at it and then taught the lesson to traditional media. They, too, now use metrics of engagement to choose what they show.
It is true also that it is a weakness of people. But there are other weaknesses that we regulate in the interest of a healthy society.
I'm not a fan of regulation but a general awareness of the core issue would go a long way towards a solution.
Right now, the talk about the issue seems misdirected. I can only see the proposed solutions putting immense power of controlling narrative in a few hands.
Generally speaking, your attitude towards anything depends on your assessment of what will happen in the future if it is unchecked.
If you see a crack in a dam, and a rivulet of water coming through, you base your actions on whether you think it's going to become larger.
If a person is pretty certain that the dam is about to collapse, then talking about the water coming through right now seems palpably absurd, but reverse the assumptions and taking drastic action seems equally absurd.
There's no neutral way based on facts and independent of opinions to decide what's absurd, extreme, or hysterical. But at the same time, different views are different, and some are going to be severely wrong about anything controversial and important.
I don't know how you make a generic framework that tells you the right thing to do when people are talking about invading Iraq, and also tells you the right thing to do when people are talking about shutdowns for covid.
Answering for myself / at the level of the individual: yes.
I don't want to work with white colleagues who are biased against non-white people. I have been in this situation at a very small startup. I wasn't the only person to notice or complain about it, so I know it wasn't "in my head". So I left.
But I also don't want to work someplace where white colleagues are overcorrecting for deep-seated cultural biases. Ideally they don't have to correct at all. I've been in that situation as well, at a large company with a extremely woke / "D&I" culture. So I left.
Exit isn't a systemic solution — only an individual one, and only for market participants with options.
It's also not cheap, but the psychological and emotional cost of being judged by group membership -- for me, at least, is greater.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that the kind of pan-social "affirmative action" advocated by diversity consultants is a double-edged sword, and not without its own risks and costs. At best it's a stopgap measure of sorts. (The diversity consultant operates under perverse incentives, and doesn't have anything like a Hippocratic Oath constraining his/her advocacy.)
I've been lucky and have found a few places where that pervasive sense of cultural bias wasn't present. It would be easier to find such places if startups, and engineering teams in particular, would try to hew to traditional standards of professionalism on the job.
> I don't want to work with white colleagues who are biased against non-white people.
I don't want to work with people who are biased against white people. I support equality and I genuinely want to see people treated fairly but I can't help but take offense to the notion that because I'm white I am less or should feel guilty.
Allyship for POC doesn't imply bias against white people. Acknowledging and fighting against systemic racism doesn't imply that all white people should feel universal guilt for their very real privilege.
Raising others up doesn't require pushing anyone down. Well, anyone that isn't in a white hood, anyway.
> Allyship for POC doesn't imply bias against white people.
Sure, in theory. In practice, bias against whites exists, some of it catalyzed by woke ideology. (By woke logic) White-presenting people are really the only ones with standing to speak to such bias in their own lives.
> Well, anyone that isn't in a white hood, anyway.
Ah yes, the IRL downvote: call someone a racist / Nazi / fascist / Klansman.
> "Ah yes, the IRL downvote: call someone a racist / Nazi / fascist / Klansman."
But it does need to be called out when it happens. Otherwise we allow it to continue. Protecting the status quo is not neutral or unbiased when the status quo is marginalising certain groups. And no, white people are really not remotely marginalised in any meaningful way in western countries.
Where did I call anyone a klansman? I'm saying you can bring up the oppressed minority populations without putting anyone else down, with the explicit exception of people who are punished by society for their hateful ideology.
> bias against whites exists
Not in any meaningful way, especially when compared to the experience of POC in America.
> some of it catalyzed by woke ideology.
Sometimes racists lose their jobs. That's not racism against white people.
> White-presenting people are really the only ones with standing to speak to such bias in their own lives.
I'm white. We don't experience meaningful bias. Trying to claim so is just attempting to appropriate victimhood from actual victims, and detracts from anti-racist movements.
Another paragraph before someone angrily hits reply and says "BUT WHITE PEOPLE IN TRAILER PARKS! BUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!" I said meaningful bias. I've experienced racial discomfort. Doesn't change the fact that no matter what angle you take, my life would've been harder if I'd been born black.
You really should engage in good faith instead of combing through nearly all of my comments in this thread and shitting out drive by rhetorically fallacious comments.
Couldn’t find the whole thing, but I agree it seems constantly talking about race leads to more racism and not less. Seems so opposed to the civil right movement stance against segregation.
"constantly talking about race leads to more racism not less"
Isn't an effective argument against diversity and inclusion efforts.
Racism is real and POC Americans (to scope the discussion) are experiencing it. Maybe Morgan Freeman has the perspective that pretending it's not real will make it go away, but that doesn't change the fact that black programmers are underrepresented, or that police forces are staffed with avowed racists, or that... Etc.
It's only patronizing if it results in preferential treatment. But I think the experts who work on these programs have found that it is necessary to "over-correct" in order to override unconscious bias.
Obviously, if it is coming across as patronizing, then you are doing it wrong. The point is to try to get to a happy medium. Like shooting for the stars in hopes of getting to the moon.
Exactly. Inevitably some of my co-workers brought up the "points" in this thread too, that it feels patronizing & unfair.
I'm not suggesting anyone be patronizing. I'm simply saying
you should be aware of the fact a co-worker might be feeling a certain way, and then notice & speak up if you see, for example, their idea(s) being misattributed to others.
The idea that being an ally would be patronizing is comparable to people responding to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter". Yes, all lives should matter, but all lives don't matter until black lives matter. If you work somewhere where white people are being systemically held back, you should speak up there as well, but I doubt that is the case.
Not a racist but am torn between ignoring race - wr’re all people stance - and the behaviour described as patronizing. My conclusion is that nobody has a clue how to deal with this mess. We need to have some sort of clear guidelines on what is best tto do in these cases without offending nor patronizing. Im an Eastern European immigrant to the US and in my US education it has been drilled into me that there is no such thing as race, we’re all related and so on while emphasizing on different cultures. I took African American studies and did learn a great deal of injustice at the expense of blacks in America. But it seems I didn’t learn how to behave properly. What am I doing wrong? Should we set clear guidelines or leave them ambiguous?
Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the options are getting ignored, including for promotions; or getting extra attention because you're from an underrepresented group, I think option B is better in the long run, because at least it helps to address the underrepresentation.
Once representation is more equal, I think the "ignore colour" option becomes more feasible. But we're not there yet.
Try asking some POC friends or colleagues! Get their perspective.
Another user mentioned that it feels like kneeling on the ground and using "baby talk." That's not what's being said here. It's simply taking a moment to observe yourself and other colleagues potentially engaging in unconscious (or even conscious - you may have an avowed racist hiding it very well on the team!) bias.
This is being an ally. It's not patronizing. The reality is that systemic racism against POC in America is real. Ignoring that only aids the status quo.
Every POC I know thinks that these kinds of efforts are often, although not always, patronizing. (In some cases even beyond patronizing; I've heard a few people say it's actively hurting their career, because they spend so much time being voluntold into diversity discussions that it cuts into their bandwidth for their real job.)
I agree, and I’m absolutely in favor of good diversity programs. It just seems to me that the attitude of “don’t strive to be race blind, always keep yourself aware” consistently leads to bad programs. By far the most bigoted thing I’ve heard at work was in a diversity seminar, where the instructor (a white man) told me (a Hispanic man) that we must make sure to call on Latinas in meetings because they’re not comfortable speaking up for themselves.
Absolutely. I don't tremendously like the framing of "allyship", but there are lots of good diversity-promoting measures that companies should take - one example, we're working on pushing my current company to do an AfroTech sponsorship.
This came up to my feed elsewhere so I’ll leave it here. I don’t care if particular skin colors are similar or dis-similar from one another, but I naturally don’t value actively agreeing with supremacists.
> East Asians were almost always called white, particularly during the period of first modern contact in the 16th century. And on a number of occasions, even more revealingly, the people were termed “as white as we are”.
(...)
> But by the 17th century, the Chinese and Japanese were “darkening” in published texts, gradually losing their erstwhile whiteness when it became clear they would remain unwilling to participate in European systems of trade, religion, and international relations.
> Calling them white, in other words, was not based on simple perception either and had less to do with pigmentation than their presumed levels of civilisation, culture, literacy, and obedience (particularly if they should become Christianised).
You taking the anthropologic perspective isn't scientifically incorrect - race doesn't actually exist, after all, in any meaningful way. However it is sociologically incorrect to call white people "colored."
BLM has been creeping towards Asia where I am, and some of those activists are absurdly trying to redefine some Asian views of aesthetics as White admirations that the noble White must responsibly educate to eliminate.
To me these ungrounded imaginations are clearly stemming from the idea that some people are objectively not colored and others are colored. I’ve never come across this “POC” term but if it’s not racist I don’t know what racism means by dictionary.
You're right to point out the absurdity of dividing the universe of people into two groups: white and non-white or white and "POC." But humans have evolved to be suspicious of those who aren't in their tribe, who are different. We are naturally xenophobic. We reflexively divide the world into "Them" and "Us." There are cultural cleavages like sexual orientation and religion that divide us, but in the US, skin color continues to be one of the stickiest and most powerful dividing lines. "White" and "POC" are words we use to discuss this powerful force in our culture. White people would still, often subconsciously, divide the world into "Them" and "Us," "whites" and "POC" if we did not acknowledge that it's happening. To understand and respond to the phenomenon, we need words like "POC" to describe it.
Of course, "POC" was first used in a Western cultural context, and it may not translate in a straightforward way to an Asian context. I am sure racism also exists in Asia--xenophobia is a universal human weakness--but it may require different language to accurately conceptualize and the dynamics might be very different. It also might not be nearly as pressing of an issue as it is in the US. I don't know.
But if you've never heard the term "POC" before, you're clearly not familiar with the racial dynamics in the US. I would encourage you to learn more before dismissing a term as racist or judging the BLM movement in the US. I can't speak to the activists in Asia you mention, but I assure you BLM is a very much needed movement in the US.
Thanks! I love how enthusiastically you engaged the wrong-headed comments on this article. I'm often tempted to roll my eyes and get on with my day, but I really do think it's important that these statements aren't allowed to go unchallenged as if they express conventional wisdom.
it seems to me a rather dangerous precedent to argue that one must ally with blm. after all if you are not a social conservative you are perpetuating an immoral status quo.
of course one might work to end qualified immunity for example or to equalize the education and economic gaps without being a Marxist.
Denying the existence of POC and their oppressed status in America is more than just "not supporting BLM," it's a denial of the foundation of their reason for existing.
> Denying the existence of POC and their oppressed status in America is more than just "not supporting BLM," it's a denial of the foundation of their reason for existing.
Acknowledging the personhood of people of color is not synonymous with supporting BLM. One might broadly support the ends of BLM while being uncomfortable with the means.
> One might broadly support the ends of BLM while being uncomfortable with the means.
I sense a conflation of the statement "Black Lives Matter" with the movement "Black Lives Matter" with a third, completely unrelated concept, that being lootings and property destruction. Are you insinuating that the people who want the world to know that black lives matter are the same that are looting target? Despite extensive arrests showing these people to be agent provocateurs and white supremacists?
Furthermore, it's not really accurate to even say "the Black Lives Matters," as if it's an organization. If anything, it's unfortunately extremely disorganized, with extremely disparate groups and goals (i.e. defund vs abolish vs reform police arguments), almost complete lack of a central, trustworthy 501(c) to donate to, and lack of leadership. The politics of the movement are also extremely disparate - communists, anarchists, libertarians, pro-gun anti-gun, Muslim, Christian, non-religious. It's all over the place.
The only unifying thing behind people who say "Black Lives Matter" is the belief that Black Lives Matter. That's why to say "uncomfortable with the means" doesn't mean you're uncomfortable with, say, someone burning down a police station, it's more precarious, or you end up like the White Moderate that MLK warned against as the greatest threat to civil rights.
> The only unifying thing behind people who say "Black Lives Matter" is the belief that Black Lives Matter.
Okay, I'll stipulate for sake of argument.
As the apostle famously said, faith without works is dead. If one believes that black lives matter, then one works to that end. Yet what should one do? Is there (to abuse the analogy) a set of ten commandments to follow? If there is no organization, then isn't one free to pursue justice for people of color as she sees fit?
It is easily seen that two people may assert "Black Lives Matter" and work towards conflicting ends.
One might, for example, work to prohibit abortion, seeing it as means by which the state sanctions genocide by murdering people of color (who have higher per-capita abortion rates than whites).
Someone else could advocate for unrestricted free-as-in-beer abortion, believing that economic inequality among women of color is driven in no small part by the disproportionate burdens placed on them by childbearing and the destruction of the nuclear family, to say nothing of reproductive rights of women.
I suppose having no organization allows for a big tent--a sort of catholicity, if you will--to unite such disparate groups of people, but it seems ineffective to me. After all, a house divided against itself cannot stand, as someone else famously said.
One way to help solve that problem is to have clearly stated policy goals (e.g., end qualified immunity) with targets to meet (e.g., here is a political contest we have a chance of swaying to get another vote against qualified immunity). A suitable organization can put people in touch (e.g. lawyers, grassroots campaigners, et c.) to get things moving. Maybe it's already been done, but in general this seems to be missing from blacklivesmatter.com.
I don't disagree with what you're saying regarding cross purposes, however there's a viewpoint missing: that of the person who doesn't believe black lives matter, either on purpose or on accident.
Liberals eating eachother alive and liberal movements being terribly disorganized is certainly an issue, but what I'm arguing against on here is people denying that BLM has ground to stand on. blacklivesmatter.com not having been updated in like, 3 years, is separate from that issue.
That is a big lie that BLM is not organized and just some loose coalition of all kind of political groups. There is an interview with one of the founders of BLM on youtube. That person says that she is a trained marxist and a trained organizer. BLM is also very well funded thanks to many corporate sponsors. There is nothing spontaneous about it.
Your statement is like claiming there is no scientific basis for family. Two people of the same race are more genetically related than half-siblings born to the same father and mothers of different races. The categories we call "race" are genetic clusters of populations who developed in different regions/environments. It's the level of taxonomy below species and above one's family. Overlap between these clusters does not invalidate them any more than the existence of purple invalidates our ability to describe something as "red" or "blue".
The exact point is that what is called “race” is a sociological sense isn’t based on meaningful generic clusters — saying someone’s (genetic cluster) race has a 1:1 mapping to skin colour is like saying their (genetic cluster) race has a 1:1 mapping to their hair colour.
From my eyes you guys differentiate on skin colors on offensive and use diversity card on defensive to further and further ingrain the notion that “others” has weirdly colored skins.
If all of western world would cut the BS and use something like “white asian non-christian” which is what “yellow” stands for in actuality, I can tolerate those racial elitism a bit better.
One might be tempted to say it’s not about skin tones, but people taught in white/black/yellow system tries to fit surface albedo of actual human beings to those visual wavelength responses out of cognitive dissonance, through pigmenting, cinematographic techniques or other technological means, or by verbally abusing creators, artists, races, cultures so I strongly believe accurate visual representations in the context of pure racism matters if it’s not going to completely entirely permanently disappear by tomorrow morning.
You guys hate it when we don’t look #FFFF00, like for real. That happens and that’s insulting.
It sounds like you’re angrily agreeing with me, but I’m not sure.
Side point: I’m not American, and what you wrote reads like “you guys” means “white Americans” (I’m not sure which political block, if any, is implied); this impression is in part because in my experience only Americans say “in actuality”.
Making sure everybody gets a fair chance and get heard, isn't really about color or gender. It's necessary in every human organization, no matter how fancy policies and human rights they claim to subscribe to.
When taken together, it means that Americans are basically unable to ever leave American taxation. No other nation has the ability to restrict their citizens like Americans do while their citizens are abroad.
This is bad news if you want to own a company while living abroad (you can't unless it's American or you'll be double taxed), live in a lower taxed country, or renounce your citizenship if you make more than something like 139k a year.
Any tax applied to America's rich would not result in money leaving the country - it's no longer really possible.
I wholeheartedly support strong inheritance tax. Dynasties are bad things and create bad systems. The US is uniquely positioned to enforce it even if it means that citizens are basically serfs to their country.
This is definitely what America is going for and definitely not the way things are right now. It’s very much possible to leave and or or move money legally.
I agree once you’ve built up a bank account as a us citizen it’s quite hard to. But if you saw this coming, you could easily have an XYZ USA, an XYZ China, etc.
