I feel like this is a huge problem with the progressive movement in the US. Morally sound arguments that rarely make practical or economic sense - and no, "tax the rich" doesn't get us there: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...
It is now US policy to push US AI onto the rest of the world. They can either lower prices to make it affordable in those regions, or, get ignored and use Chinese models which are an order of magnitude cheaper, like Deepseek, or just immigrate.
That's not an unfair assessment, but I would pose additional questions:
Why does doing the morally sound thing always have to be easier, better, and cheaper than ruining the world and creating human misery? Why must the morally superior argument be financially unassailable?
I'm getting older and angrier and I've grown tired of meeting greedy, disingenuous adversaries halfway just to have my hand slapped away after they get what they want. Since we've established that conservatives will absolutely put up with pain to harm outgroup bogeymen, I don't listen to their appeals for things that I hope will reduce human misery in the world.
With that in mind: Tax the rich like it's the 1950s, healthcare for all, stop burning fossil fuels, etc. Do it all and see what works, darn it.
Once you accept that doing the morally sound thing costs money, the question becomes what is the most good you could do with that money.
We could pay to run LLMS at highly subsidized rates for the global poor. Or we could take the money we would have spent running those LLMs and just give it to the poor. I'm not saying direct cash infusions is the best way of spending that money. But doubling their income seems a lot more effective that a ChatGPT subscription.
> Once you accept that doing the morally sound thing costs money, the question becomes what is the most good you could do with that money.
Relative to the topic of this thread, providing access to LLMs at a loss would not be at the top of my list of ways to right moral wrongs either. But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing, unless one believes that Reagan economic theory is backed by actual empirical evidence. Some actions in civic life are done for symbolic reasons. People doff their hats and apply their right hand to their precordium for symbolic reasons. We can progressively tax all to symbolize something about economic fairness and opposition to the winner-take-all ethos.
1. As one of "the rich" that progressives target continuously, I still can't afford a house in CA. I'm moving to Washington and CA will lose many median Californians' worth of income.
2. Nearly every EU country that attempted wealth taxes (another form of "taxing the rich") recalled them due to capital flight that offset the tax income.
4. I personally don't feel the value in working harder or smarter to earn more, because the marginal returns are so low due to taxes. Discouraging innovation is not good for the country.
> We can progressively tax all to symbolize something about economic fairness
Anyways, "taxing the rich" simply doesn't get us there:
1. You could liquidate every billionaire, including all their assets, and you wouldn't fund the government for 9 months.
2. The rest of us that progressives consider "rich" are W-2s that already pay a fuckton in taxes. If you look at the sources above, this is explained clearly.
3. Contrary to the meme, the biggest objective gap in tax income is not on the rich but on our middle class, which does not pay its fair share wrt our EU counterparts (explaining the gap necessary to fund the desired social services, which taxing the rich would not cover due to its comparatively small size). 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax! https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...
---
Finally, at the core of your assumption is the idea that more taxes help. As someone that has worked in both government-funded labs and government contracting, I can promise you they don't. The sheer wastage is mind boggling, honestly sickening. It makes the our tech mega corps look tiny. I used to have a progressive view on taxation until I saw the infinite money black hole that was government spending.
You make over $500k annually and you can't afford a house? I call shenanigans.
Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025?
Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.
You clearly aren't discussing in good faith if your response to the write up above is essentially "right wing thought detected, opinion rejected."
What an excellent demonstration of shutting off factual information to support your own biases.
- You know nothing about the CA housing market vs income and income tax, or my personal situation, but you simply assume I'm lying.
- You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.
- You're somehow asserting that because I find the findings in an economic paper compelling, I must support the erosion of civil liberties, in an attempt to reduce my argument to the absurd and insult my character.
It shocks me that people can engage in discussions so simplistically and maliciously. HN has deteriorated so much because of comments like yours. Please just refrain from participating entirely if you're going to yell into the void and then not engage in good faith. Reddit is that way.
Let's look at "rich flight" through the lens that is not colored with difference to the affluent. The idea here is that, if you make rich folk pay more taxes, they'll pack up their hoard pile of gold, jewels, and dwarf skeletons and fly away to somewhere they're less taxed and more appreciated.
That sounds great until you realize that rich people have massive roots in the places they live. Their expensive homes and professional lives are very closely tied to the community in which they're located. This flight is something that gets threatened very frequently and acted upon very rarely. If past performance is any indicator of future returns, then I'd gladly take my chances that those jerks stick around and pay their fair share.
>You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.
My disgust comes from actually looking through the Mahattan Institute and seeing it's every bit as trash-flavored as the Heritage Foundation. I absolutely don't need to entertain their disingenuous, fascist-adjacent prattle. After the last few months, it's advisable to write off anything that still claims to be conservative. They've squandered all benefit of the doubt and, for the sake of our own survival, should be reviled at every opportunity.
On a more targeted note, you are switching between "I find this idea intriguing" and "this idea is a fact that's supported by the liberals on Freakonomics" so fast I'm getting whiplash over here. Freakonomics, while entertaining, has been spectactularly wrong enough times that it's more entertainment than anything else. You're appealing to an authority that has a predilection for results that are "surprising."
I don't know if you support the erosion of civil liberties, but it seems like you enjoy repeating things from folks that do.
The phrasing is making it sound like a business argument though. "[Google] should have thought better ..." sounds like "well it would be better for Google the company to do ..."
Why? We are not talking about access to safe drinking water, AI is the latest tech vanity / bubble. Some people have more direct life concerns like unstable governments or access to education than making a ghiblified version of their photo.
