Maybe you're not aware how these "unrealized" capital gains (at scale) are indirectly realized in the form of loans taken against value of the asset.

Massive wealth doesn't operate in income or even in typical capital gains advantages you're referring to. It operates at a scale where the value of the assets are so great, banks compete to give loans to them, which are not taxed like income.

It's totally absurd to argue that loans from assets isn't income. It's used to purchase more assets, to purchase tax favorable legislation, to buy media to keep us thinking this issue is about paying capital gains on your retirement portfolio.

If Bezos will "never get that money unless he sells stock" was a true statement, then where do all the yachts and houses and other assets come from? How does he buy them? If the IRS suddenly recognized loans taken against asset wealth or any exchange of assets as income, the tax rates of the super wealthy compared to the average American would suddenly look sane.

>It's totally absurd to argue that loans from assets isn't income

That seems kinda whack to me. If I get a $500k mortgage, it's not like I received $500k of income that year-- the house belongs to the bank, and I'll be making payments for 30 years. If I stop paying my mortgage, I'll lose "my" house and have nothing to show for it except an insane tax bill (just like Elon would have to give up some of his Tesla stock if he gets margin called)

The collateralized loans trick was really only semi-viable because of historically low interest rates. SOFR will climb up to the more standard rate of 5-15% APR, which we saw with LIBOR back in the day. At that point, the one-off 23.8% capital gains tax on selling stock becomes more competitive.

A mortgage of that scale isn't even remotely close to how the mega rich operate. How is that example relevant to a discussion about multimillionaires and billionaires? Such a mortgage requires a massive down payment via cash (that was taxed), a non-trivial interest rate, and monthly payments again with taxed cash. The tax rates of such income is likely higher than the capital gains tax. The mega rich get loans in the tens of millions all the way up to billions with paintings, watches, houses, unrealized investments as collateral at ultra low interest rates. They repay the loan with money siphoned off at low tax rates, such as through dividends and even other loans, while the things they used as collateral continue to grow unchecked in value. Like seriously, the capital gains tax is much lower than the income tax rate I pay. How the hell is that not whack if not totally fucked up? Do you think it's okay that the mega rich are incentivized to continue to get richer and richer while receiving the massively preferential loans and tax rates they get? What normal person is getting rich off of a 30-year mortgage, where payments on make up double digit percentages of their monthly income?

Those loans have to be repaid. They aren’t a gift ffs.

They are repaid to the bank, which is obvious. No one said they are gifts. They are loaned at ridiculously low interest rates, and the government never sees an ounce of tax from the individual, which is the entire point. Like the person you replied to said, the mega-rich don't operate on income like the rest of us. Why does that make them completely immune to taxation?

How do you think those loans get paid?

Are these loans ever repaid or are you suggesting Bezos/Bill Gates etc have slowly accumulated loans to be paid in some long future. If so there must be some public info. about its stats

I would assume that, yes, these loans are often repaid via other similar loans or instruments that continue to leave unrealized gains as unrealized and avoid taxation. I doubt many multi-millionaires and billionaires publicly disclose or publish the techniques they use to siphon wealth off of society.

It is absurd to argue a loan is income. You get to keep income, you have to return the value of a loan, eventually. The process of unwinding the loan generates tax revenue.

Constant borrowing isn’t a free money machine, eventually you have to earn more to service the debt (income tax) or sell assets to pay it back (capital gains).

Have you ever taken a loan?

needs a random button

I agree. The art doesn't have to be good or hung in a gallery to be of value.

The paintings represent an new, and perhaps candid insight into the thoughts and feelings of a former president. They might reveal something we wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to observe. GWB may not even know what he's revealing about himself.

My take on the paintings is that they project a sense of loneliness, separation, and introspection.

very interesting.

I think that shower painting is just brilliant, in a Spike Milligan sort of way.

It seriously does make me like the guy more.

I'm not sure I have a whole lot to add that you two haven't said, but the way his reflection in mirror is so far away from his actual head and the smallness of it... wow, he suddenly seems so human to me. I have chills.

I know he put on the tough front of "you can't regret anything and I'd invade again," but who can't look at this and think he's having second thoughts?

How can any president not spend their retirement reflecting on their decisions? Many decisions have a lot of collateral damage even if they are the right decisions.

you can't change anything without critical mass. it usually takes a national disaster or profound fear of something to mobilize support for popular change. depending on your point of view, that's either a feature or fault of our society.

Are these real CEOs or idealized CEOs? I've worked for CEOs who were horrible people and yet extremely successful (ie: running profitable businesses and having repeat success).

Sadly, the nice CEOs I've had were failures building companies.

From my observation, the quality that defines a CEO is that they are oblivious to their own faults and the feelings of others.

They are like bad dancers with confidence. They have no idea they look like an idiot or that they're making you uncomfortable, and if they did, they wouldn't care.

The thought of a couple of chubby assholes in suits I've known over the years doing ballet badly is immensely pleasing.

I don't think it's that CEOs must be "bad people" (for want of a better description) to succeed.

I think it's more than CEOs have to be able to upset people to get the result they want. It also helps if that result is beneficial to themselves or the company.

cool, but what's this -really- for? ;)

recruiting coders?

optimizing keyboard layouts?

optimizing character usage for new language or framework development?

advertising open source projects?

I found myself fat fingering too many keys, wanted to improve my typing, and one thing led to another...

In SFO, I haven't seen any of this and security seems pretty much unchanged, but recently going through San Diego was a completely different experience. There they were searching passengers and using full body scanners on children. I overheard a mom telling her kids, "just do what they tell you" waiting in line to be searched, and being a dad, was immediately sick to my stomach thinking of what these kids were learning. If you don't have children you have no idea that simple statements like that can become rules in a child's brain; rules that are likely to get applied out of context.

Just curious, how would you answer a 3-6 year old child as to why it is ok for a uniformed stranger to be touching them?

Maybe the employees of Zynga who weren't offered this deal should sue Zynga for too little compensation for the value they've created. The hammer should swing both ways.

In my experience, the difference between a GSD engineer and an average engineer is the understanding that it is up to you to be motivated, focused, and effective.

And, I've worked with many GSD engineers, so they definitely exist.

I'd agree that it's up to them to identify and communicate things that are challenging their effectiveness, but not always to fix them... and early in someone's career even identifying them can be tough.

I'm just arguing that it's contextual way more often than it's fundamental, and the tone of the article left me with the impression that the author isn't interested in playing much of a role in people's motivations.

Apologies if my tone set up the wrong impression - I think the environment, manager, motivations etc. are all crucial, and some people are very productive in some settings but not others.

That said, I also think there are many people who just aren't that productive, and screening for people who are great at GSD is crucial for a startup.

Likewise, I apologize if I took too much from tone.. I think the bottom line is that we disagree here:

"... there are many people who just aren't that productive..."

I don't think that's the case. I think the steady-state for most people is working (hard). People who aren't productive are generally frustrated that they're not productive. I get it though, there are people who require very little from the outside world to move forward. They'll "GSD" as you put it without much outside influence. I've worked with people who score high on that metric, and I'm genuinely humbled by their ability to make forward progress even in less than optimal conditions.

That said, I think it's tempting to value them above resources that are more sensitive to their context but I'd warn against missing an opportunity. In my experience the developers your talking about will absolutely 'GSD'.. Even when all you ask them to do is 'S'.

I frankly like surrounding myself with people whose motivation falters when they don't feel connected to the problem we're solving for our users, or when we're calling too many bullshit meetings, or when they don't believe in what we're doing. Keeps us honest. Those employees are your canary in the mineshaft. I think where their interest goes, our market is likely to follow.

After all, if my team isn't excited to build it who the fuck do I expect to pay me for it?

Groupon's model is only broken in the context of billions or trillions. At smaller scale, which sounds like what your friend is thinking, there is still lots of opportunity to innovate and profit.

Groupon model requires scale much bigger than "small" to work.

The cost of acquiring merchant is high even if you do have lots of potential customers.

If you don't have lots of potential customers, a merchant will not take you seriously regardless of how much you spend trying to woo him.

You can't wish away those inherent scaling problems with "opportunity to innovate". There is a reason why the only companies entering this business are well capitalized with lots of existing eyeballs and existing strengths they can leverage (i.e Google, Amazon, Facebook).