Genuinely curious about the math behind this. https://www.msci.com/indexes/index/754891 this index represents a decent chunk of the worldwide telecommunication industry. It's only worth $1.45T in total. They roll trucks and dig trenches to provide internet service - and provide other telecom services besides. My gut tells me that's cheaper than launching rockets. And these companies already provide service to most of the humans that have money.
I think SpaceX has done brilliantly in lowering the cost of rocket launches. I still don't understand or believe in the valuation.
Neither is using "Nazi" as a pejorative, but these kinds of comparisons can be valuable when they identify commonalities between modern proposal and historical approaches to governance that went horribly wrong. (Obviously)
Well, you don't know if they do, or if they were just capitalising the start of their sentence while not feeing that the word needs a capital letter in and of itself.
(But yeah, personally I would capitalised both counties regardless of spelling/which name used.)
I won't be calling Turkey Türkiye anymore than I would call China Zhōngguó.
They don't have any authority to manage other people's languages.
The lack of capitalization is an obvious error, though. Before clicking, I wondered if some accidental discovery in turkeys (as birds) resulted in better human hair growth.
Sure, but "turkey" is a bird, not a country. You at least have to write "Turkey" to be clear to English speakers. If you like, save Türkiye for your visits to the UN.
Exactly. "Earth" means the planet we live on and "earth" means soil. The disrespect of the meaning conveyed by not using the correct case is noxious and sloppy.
Yes! I originally read the headline as "a turkey" because of the lack of a capital T.
They can call themselves what they want, but it unreasonable of the Turks to expect English speakers to write their country's name with characters which are not part of our alphabet.
Yeah I'm not gonna type out the u with an umlaut (?) myself on an message board. If I were writing to the UN or to the Turkish embassy I'd copy-paste it. But lowercasing a proper noun is egregious.
Is it a right of any nation to assert what other nations call it? Can America ask China to stop calling them 美国 (Měiguó) and call them the USA?
The problem with the turkey rebranding is that it was a mere orthographic update, but it is using orthography that is very non standard(whatever that means for English), including using a diacritic rarely seen in English.
I could get behind it more if they completely changed the name, like a when Swaziland switched to eswatini. But for now, you can pry turkey from my cold dead hands
I think, up until now, no politician has campaigned on the combination of a wealth tax and a significant income tax reduction. Wealth taxes are always proposed as in addition to, rather than a replacement for, income taxes. This makes them an electoral loser. All the temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires come out to rally against the wealth tax.
On the other hand if it put significant money into most people's hands...it's going to be a lot harder to fight.
I think you've misunderstood the proposal. The government levies a tax in the form of shares, not cash. It doesn't pay for the shares.
FTA: "It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock."
That seems like it would be pushing pretty hard against the Takings clause. Federal wealth taxes in general are rather precarious in the US because the 16th amendment allows taxing income, not assets.
Article 1, Section 8 has the general taxation clause:
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
but Section 9 has the apportionment clause:
> No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The term "direct tax" isn't fully explained, but it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax. Congress imposed an income tax, but SCOTUS said in Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co that a tax on rental income is effectively a property tax, and so must be apportioned.
The 16th Amendment was enacted specifically to overrule the Pollock decision, and allowed for income taxes to not have to be apportioned. In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.
I'm not sure which part you're calling inaccurate. The 16th amendment:
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Allows taxes on incomes (but not wealth) without apportionment.
According to your own post:
> it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax.
Implying that unlike income under the 16th amendment, a federal tax on wealth would have to be apportioned. But apportionment isn't something people are likely to accept in that context because then you can't put the screws to people in New York or Texas without extracting the same amount per capita from the people in New Mexico or Arkansas.
> In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.
Unclear how that reasoning could be bonkers without Wickard v. Filburn being even worse, since the logic is pretty similar. The 16th amendment itself had exactly the result apportionment was intended to prevent, i.e. states with structural political advantages (swing states, lower population states with more US Senators per capita) quickly set up massive federal transfers to themselves at the expense of other states.
There is no federal property tax, and even state property taxes are collected in dollars rather than shares of ownership and as a small recurring percentage rather than a one-time taking of what amounts to a controlling interest.
I think SpaceX has done brilliantly in lowering the cost of rocket launches. I still don't understand or believe in the valuation.
reply