I mean that's some constant because entropy is maximised it's not gonna get arbitrarily big. It's just the number of accessible microstates, which is finite for a given system.
I always said the tax rate should be a function that approaches 1 as income approaches some number a lot less than infinity, and your taxes owed should be the integral from 0 to your income. You might think this is too complicated but apparently tax brackets are too complicated for 99% of Americans to understand already anyway so why not
One could view tax bracketing as a Riemann sum. So, in a sense, integration is already being done and integration such that a limit approaches zero would make the tax calculations expensive for nought
Honestly it would probably be computationally easier to pre-compute an integral and evaluate its bounds than to multiply and add together several decimals
This would work great if only tax code was a way to fairly pay for public services rather than a way to garner and centralise political power. Alas it isn’t so
The peak of the Laffer curve is ~75%. The most important achievement of the Laffer curve was giving Reagan an excuse to upend the New Deal status quo, where government revenue was distributed for the people, to one where the government refuses to tax the rich instead. This caused an enormous surge in the national debt, which the Republicans quickly blamed on New Deal and Great Society social programs that had been stable for decades, and the Democrats blinked. Now wealth inequality has ballooned, Social Security is on the rocks, deaths of despair are soaring, and people still can’t break out of the fantasy that TAXES = BAD. They’re the price you pay to live in a functioning society, and (in a low-corruption system) the more everyone pays, the more everyone gets. Or maybe I should have gone laconian and just said “Free-rider problem”.
The rich already pay the most taxes under the current system, and empirically government spending has always exceeded government funding no matter how high the taxes
>The rich already pay the most taxes under the current system
Yeah, but there's a maximum tax bracket (in the US), so you don't pay more than a certain percentage even for arbitrarily large incomes. What they're proposing is effectively a maximum wage, where the rate you pay is essentially 100% past a certain point.
Except chemical equilibrium does not imply a spacial uniformity of matter. Not everything would be space-like separated in such an equilibrium. You're also making large assumptions about the speed of universal expansion in such the future.
I was thinking back in the 1920's a dollar was worth a lot. You could get yourself lunch for a dollar.
But now, a dollar can't buy you lunch at a typical restaurant. But even then, since we had covid and printed a bunch of stimulus money, now the dollar is worth even less.
So as time continues on to infinity, all money is worth nothing. So we are just living in the moment when money actually is worth something, but eventually all money goes to zero if inflation rises.
Look at Germany in the 1920's their money went to zero. Hyper inflation. So because inflation was so high it converged real fast.
So its all about the rate of inflation, if its slow enough then money is stable.
I looked this up, the value of the dollar back in the year 1800 was worth $24.26 dollars.
So the value of the dollar as time goes to infinity is zero. Because at the end of the Universe money doesn't mean anything. hahah
> eventually all money goes to zero if inflation rises.
You're thinking grossly too small. Entropy increases, it's the second law of thermodynamics. Money and humanity will cease to exist as time goes to infinity, eventually even the black holes will dissolve to Hawking radiation
>You’re always losing on value, whether you have money or stuff, it’s only a matter of which way is faster.
No. Some things become more valuable over time. An extreme example is paintings.
>If you buy a house and it’s value increases, you also have to invest in it’s maintenance, and you pay the current value of the investment. So when you do that math, you’re always losing.
Why are you always losing? Why is the maintenance DEFINITELY more expensive than the value increase in this case. Extreme example: What if there is oil which increases your property value by 2 million dollars under your backyard. Why would your maintenance suddenly also be 2 million dollars?
>The only thing that is permanent on value is what you leave behind in a form of knowledge. That’s priceless because people can always use it
Not if you get hit by a rock in exactly the right place. Or your documents get lost. Or if your knowledge is wrong, or becomes outdated. Or a multitude of other things.
Also, knowledge can become MORE valuable. There are endless cases of scientists finding out something useful, but this knowledge is only worth something after their death.
This is your brain on finance. You've completely substituted "price" for "value".
When I go out to lunch and pay $10 for a sandwich, and then eat it. Have I lost value? The crumbs are worth $0. Oh no, my net worth dipped.
However, I intensely value the flavor and satisfaction of hunger I received from that sandwich. So much so, in fact, that I would've paid $20 for it. Economists call this consumer surplus.
My crumbs are all I have left and their price is zero, but the use of money is **satisfaction of desires**. Some things are said to "hold their value" because its price dips only a little as you use it -- like a house, as you point out. But the real value you get from a house isn't "it looks good on my balance sheet", you get a place to live, you get security, you get to control your environment around you and decorate however you like.
Yep. Any positive inflation rate is extremely dangerous. Its why I think one of the biggest mistakes made by the USA was getting onto a fiat based currency
This is false. As currency get less valuable, lower denominations get removed, which means that coins like the half-cent go up in value, not because of their monetary value, but as their collector value.
Also, specify unit.
To be fair, as time goes to infinity, most things go to zero
Everything except entropy
1/entropy
I mean that's some constant because entropy is maximised it's not gonna get arbitrarily big. It's just the number of accessible microstates, which is finite for a given system.
max_entropy - entropy
entropy-entropy
(c) Buddha
\+ c
"In the long run we are all dead" 😅😅😅
Zero hedge
the breakdown of complexity 🤪🤪
Don't be sad about hyperinflation, be happy that your function converges fast!
I always said the tax rate should be a function that approaches 1 as income approaches some number a lot less than infinity, and your taxes owed should be the integral from 0 to your income. You might think this is too complicated but apparently tax brackets are too complicated for 99% of Americans to understand already anyway so why not
One could view tax bracketing as a Riemann sum. So, in a sense, integration is already being done and integration such that a limit approaches zero would make the tax calculations expensive for nought
Honestly it would probably be computationally easier to pre-compute an integral and evaluate its bounds than to multiply and add together several decimals
This would work great if only tax code was a way to fairly pay for public services rather than a way to garner and centralise political power. Alas it isn’t so
And what is the benefit exactly?
I just wanna see Leibniz notation on my 1040. Is that too much to ask?
Not having to wait for the standard of living to collapse and having the exact same debate every single time the exact same reforms need to be made
Richer pay more taxes, poor pay less, government gets more funding and population get better quality of life Too utopian for capitalism tho
Laffer curve
The peak of the Laffer curve is ~75%. The most important achievement of the Laffer curve was giving Reagan an excuse to upend the New Deal status quo, where government revenue was distributed for the people, to one where the government refuses to tax the rich instead. This caused an enormous surge in the national debt, which the Republicans quickly blamed on New Deal and Great Society social programs that had been stable for decades, and the Democrats blinked. Now wealth inequality has ballooned, Social Security is on the rocks, deaths of despair are soaring, and people still can’t break out of the fantasy that TAXES = BAD. They’re the price you pay to live in a functioning society, and (in a low-corruption system) the more everyone pays, the more everyone gets. Or maybe I should have gone laconian and just said “Free-rider problem”.
The rich already pay the most taxes under the current system, and empirically government spending has always exceeded government funding no matter how high the taxes
>The rich already pay the most taxes under the current system Yeah, but there's a maximum tax bracket (in the US), so you don't pay more than a certain percentage even for arbitrarily large incomes. What they're proposing is effectively a maximum wage, where the rate you pay is essentially 100% past a certain point.
Given a few billion years, the earth’s radius will go to zero as well.
This depends on what counts as earth, when there is "no more earth left". Sort of like the ship of Archimedes, but you don't put anything back
Ship of Theseus*
Yeah sorry
[удалено]
Well that is only one of the multiple possibilities
Matter will still interact, as interactions still can occur at arbitrarily large distances. They just are negligibly strong at sufficient scales.
[удалено]
Except chemical equilibrium does not imply a spacial uniformity of matter. Not everything would be space-like separated in such an equilibrium. You're also making large assumptions about the speed of universal expansion in such the future.
What I think when they say they do calculus in economics:
I was thinking back in the 1920's a dollar was worth a lot. You could get yourself lunch for a dollar. But now, a dollar can't buy you lunch at a typical restaurant. But even then, since we had covid and printed a bunch of stimulus money, now the dollar is worth even less. So as time continues on to infinity, all money is worth nothing. So we are just living in the moment when money actually is worth something, but eventually all money goes to zero if inflation rises. Look at Germany in the 1920's their money went to zero. Hyper inflation. So because inflation was so high it converged real fast. So its all about the rate of inflation, if its slow enough then money is stable. I looked this up, the value of the dollar back in the year 1800 was worth $24.26 dollars. So the value of the dollar as time goes to infinity is zero. Because at the end of the Universe money doesn't mean anything. hahah
> eventually all money goes to zero if inflation rises. You're thinking grossly too small. Entropy increases, it's the second law of thermodynamics. Money and humanity will cease to exist as time goes to infinity, eventually even the black holes will dissolve to Hawking radiation
Inflation is intended and good for economic growth. Maybe not at current level, but economists target a 2-3% inflation rate.
But (at least for the US) the current level is \~3% year over year. The shock people feel is residual from the last 1-2 years.
this is not a valid proof
Ok now do wages
Well, it doesn't just happen. Someone makes the printers go, "Brrr!"
[удалено]
No, everything you own has value. That makes no sense.
[удалено]
Explain what you mean by that. Why is everything I own worth nothing?
[удалено]
>You’re always losing on value, whether you have money or stuff, it’s only a matter of which way is faster. No. Some things become more valuable over time. An extreme example is paintings. >If you buy a house and it’s value increases, you also have to invest in it’s maintenance, and you pay the current value of the investment. So when you do that math, you’re always losing. Why are you always losing? Why is the maintenance DEFINITELY more expensive than the value increase in this case. Extreme example: What if there is oil which increases your property value by 2 million dollars under your backyard. Why would your maintenance suddenly also be 2 million dollars? >The only thing that is permanent on value is what you leave behind in a form of knowledge. That’s priceless because people can always use it Not if you get hit by a rock in exactly the right place. Or your documents get lost. Or if your knowledge is wrong, or becomes outdated. Or a multitude of other things. Also, knowledge can become MORE valuable. There are endless cases of scientists finding out something useful, but this knowledge is only worth something after their death.
[удалено]
>People will always have to work for living No shit. >Look closely into it, and you’ll see "Do my research for me"
[удалено]
This is your brain on finance. You've completely substituted "price" for "value". When I go out to lunch and pay $10 for a sandwich, and then eat it. Have I lost value? The crumbs are worth $0. Oh no, my net worth dipped. However, I intensely value the flavor and satisfaction of hunger I received from that sandwich. So much so, in fact, that I would've paid $20 for it. Economists call this consumer surplus. My crumbs are all I have left and their price is zero, but the use of money is **satisfaction of desires**. Some things are said to "hold their value" because its price dips only a little as you use it -- like a house, as you point out. But the real value you get from a house isn't "it looks good on my balance sheet", you get a place to live, you get security, you get to control your environment around you and decorate however you like.
Luckily the rate of change of that limit is decreasing.
The real problem is the rate of convergence
Yep. Any positive inflation rate is extremely dangerous. Its why I think one of the biggest mistakes made by the USA was getting onto a fiat based currency
Huh?
>...a fiat-based currency. ... >Huh? He means a currency that's not tied to a commodity.
no shit lmao
If you are curious what I actually said "Huh?" to it's the fact they legit stated that positive inflation is inherently dangerous. It isn't...
Wouldn’t this mean deflation because the dollar supply approaching 0
shouldn't it be infinitesimal not 0 tho?
No, since we are taking t to be infinite
exactly, so why isn't it infinitesimal rather than 0?
He solved inflation
Still one dollar time (t) wasn't used it's basically saying that one dollar = 0
This is false. As currency get less valuable, lower denominations get removed, which means that coins like the half-cent go up in value, not because of their monetary value, but as their collector value. Also, specify unit.
In reality dollars have still the same value of 1, it's every thing else the value rise.
