this is a common misconception, which I think arises from the ideas of index investing. one must remember that while the index itself increases over time, many of the names on the index in eg the year 2000 simply don't exist anymore; consider companies like Kodak Eastman
if you held all of the energy drink companies including a placement into monster for 25+ years you would indeed make money on the 1-2 winners and end up net ahead.
But if you missed monster, you could very easily have just bought a basket of dog companies that all completely fail and the money is gone
the chief challenge is: how does one actually value land?
if I own 1000 acres in the middle of nowhere that holds an enormously profitable business, I could end up paying almost zero tax simply because I dont have any nearby real estate development
Also, LVT has never been proposed with taxing 100% of the annual rental value of land. This means you do not need to be 100% accurate with your assessment in order for the land to still be profitable to utilize. A 33% tax would mean you could literally be off by a factor of three in the assessment and it would still be marginally profitable.
I'm not sure about your example, but land of little potential value should be taxed little. Keep in mind that it is taxed according to its potential value though - not its current. 1,000 acres in the middle of nowhere is likely to cost basically zero in taxes if it can't be utilized for any purpose either now or in the future. If it has future value then you would need to do a net present value calculation.
Urbit was essentially Yarvin's political ideology written as a programming system. It was all about being king over the Urbit address space and creating a feudal community of super users ruling over regular users.
this article is just a summary of things curtis yarvin originally said over 5 years ago and a Marinetti article that was in new scientist a few weeks back
On what basis do you make this accusation? Does HN need a new rule specifying what the other rules already explain? Give OP the benefit of the doubt. I read the entire article and it was absolutely not LLM-generated.
Yeah, I am not sure who this author is but it is at least a useful summary of the dynamics and history of neoreactionary movement. I don’t think most small l-and-c liberals and conservatives have any idea of what they’re up against, and are simply bewildered by what’s happening.
eggs are homogenous in nature, so a blind test between two eggs can reveal the superior quality of one type of homogenous product. Especially when it is an egg, which is entirely "natural"
a chicken nugget is not the same thing as whole chicken, because it has many chemicals, additives, flavouring agents, msg, organ meat, etc and is then battered or crumbed and deep fried before being packed. It also has a different texture altogether, and is eaten with the hands which children find easier than using cutlery.
compare a child tasting two different varieties of dark chocolate in comparison to a milk chocolate with caramel filling, or two varieties of whole milk to chocolate skim milk, et cetera.
