Xhieron

Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare!

Good for them. At least somebody did.

We all called it. Didn’t matter. Time to move to the next box.

Except there’s no such thing as a hollow blue suit! Any alternative to Biden has to be a real live human being, probably with real live political aspirations of their own. That means they’re going to want to win. Anybody who stands any chance of being anywhere remotely close to competitive also stands a chance of outright winning under better circumstances in four years.

You’re asking an ambitious politician to take a real, serious risk of political suicide just to save face, and the reality is that no matter who your replacement is, polling better than Biden isn’t a win condition. Winning the election in November is the only good outcome. All other outcomes are bad not only for the nation but also personally for whoever replaces Biden.

Sure, you can run a would-never-win-or-even-run-anyway candidate, but like I said: that’s essentially conceding the election, and Biden can do that on his own.

Uh… okay, bro. You know that Donald Trump is also running in this election, right? Biden could be running single digits, and it still wouldn’t change the calculus: If a Biden alternative can’t beat Trump, they’re not going to put an albatross around the neck of their political career just to lose in November.

Newsom was on MSNBC singing Joe’s praises, just like he would have done regardless, because Newsom wants to be president, but Newsom also polls worse than Biden. That’s not hypothetical. Those polls already exist, and a drop in Biden’s numbers isn’t automatically a boost for Newsom. If Newsom thinks losing in 24 hurts his viability in 28, he wouldn’t do it. And who could blame him? It’s five months to the election.

The point is: It’s possible that all of the options are bad. Biden was in the mid-forties before the debate and the thirties after. He went from near toss-up to probably losing if the election were yesterday/today. Newsom might out-poll Biden today, but that’s not the contest.

The contest is with Trump. It’s not good enough to poll better than Biden. You have to actually carry all of Biden’s states and then some. If I’m Newsom and deciding whether to try to cobble together a five-month campaign and limp to November to save the DNC from itself and protect Amtrak Joe’s legacy when I’m starting 15 points in the hole or run my own campaign against the likes of a Haley or DeSantis also-ran once Trump is term-barred, dead, or both in four years, I’m not taking a risk at the convention unless someone makes me very, very confident that I could win.

And there’s the rub. Newsom wants to be president, and he’d love to be president in six months, but he’s not going to take over a campaign that’s already lost. If the party thinks Trump wins no matter what–not an unreasonable conclusion–why on earth would they burn their best shot of a rebound in 28?

Ratings and clicks–same thing they wanted with the debate.

This probably doesn’t work, and it’s probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we’re coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.

If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.

A few reasons:

1. Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.
2. Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.
3. The truth may be that the party would rather just let Trump win. That sounds unthinkable, but this isn’t a secret cabal of idealists we’re talking about: it’s a bunch of self-interested rich people who want to put themselves in power. Getting them to do anything for the public good is difficult under the best circumstances. They could easily decide–rightly–that Biden is still their best shot at beating Trump. That was the call in 2020, and it paid off. Don’t forget that many of these same names being batted around now were active in the party four years ago. Newsom loses to Trump, and he’s largely seen as the best alternative. If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning. You might decide it’s just a lost cause and start planning for a four year long nightmare.

deleted by creator

As a young teenager: Do not start working until you have to. Once you start, you’ll never stop.

Thank you for this. That was a fantastic survey of some non-materialistic perspectives on consciousness. I have no idea what future research might reveal, but it’s refreshing to see that there are people who are both very interested in the questions and also committed to the scientific method.

The hog farm is a hypothetical example. Getting hung up on it doesn’t change the reality that there are alternative uses of property that don’t require new zoning. In places where they don’t exist they will be made to exist, because people will sooner burn down their properties than give them away.

And you’re now suggesting that instead of renting, property owners should hold the notes on subprime mortgages? Your position is “If you’re creditworthy enough to own a second home, you should be forced to sell it to someone who can’t afford it and carry a note yourself at tremendous risk that an American bank knows better than to hold.” You were alive in 2008, right? You want a Depression? That’s how you get a Depression. When you find yourself advertising subprime mortgages in order to make your scheme work, don’t you think that might be a good time to reevaluate?

The seller isn’t holding the house when the buyer defaults. The seller is holding the house, the buyer’s damages to the house, the cost of the foreclosure, and the cost of deficiency litigation against the defaulting buyer who is probably judgment-proof, and that’s assuming the seller doesn’t also lose the house at foreclosure, since a foreclosure is a public sale. So the seller carries all of the risk while the unqualified buyer gets the equity. I don’t even own any land to rent, but fuck that. I’d sooner let it sit empty. The only people making money in that environment are real estate lawyers.

And none of this even considers that currently, a creditworthy seller statistically has given her own mortgage on the rental property in the first place, and that means the seller can’t finance the house herself because she can’t transfer good title to anyone without paying off her own note first. That’s a problem that doesn’t exist for, you guessed it, landlords. That scenario exists to currently enable people to buy second homes and generate wealth for their families, and it’s impossible in your regime in which apparently the upper middle class should not exist at all.

The bottom line is that your scheme is a disaster. I don’t say that to be mean. It’s just out of touch with economic reality. People can’t afford houses, and forcing landlords to sell their land doesn’t make people able to afford it. Credit and lending isn’t made up. It’s based on actual risk assessment, and forcing landlords to bear that risk while also losing their land isn’t a transfer of wealth to vulnerable populations or younger generations. It’s an erasure of wealth by procedure, bureaucracy, and waste.

And the owner-occupier thing? You know people can lie about their residency and building occupancy, right?

Your scheme, if implemented, would not solve the housing crisis. It targets the wrong people, it’s economically indefensible, and most importantly, it destroys class solidarity thay would otherwise exist between small landowners and renters. The only thing you might accomplish is a tremendous wave of violence, because I think I can speak for a lot of Americans here:

I have been tremendously, exceedingly fortunate and privileged to buy land. I wish everyone were so fortunate. I worked very hard for it. Other members of my family have also, and as much as I dread it, eventually I may inherit a second home that has been in my family for generations and was paid for by decades of backbreaking labor by my ancestors. When that day comes, I may rent one of these properties until my son is old enough to live there with his family. That’s the entirety of my retirement and investment strategy. My savings will simply not be enough on their own.

And your scheme suggests instead that I should be forced to sell to someone who may well fail to pay for it. No thanks. That’s a nonstarter, and it’s a nonstarter for everyone whose story even remotely resembles mine. In my part of the world, that’s the story of every house in the county. Your scheme doesn’t work for the simple reason that people here would sooner overthrow the government than let it stand.

I will never deed these properties away. They are paid for with my family’s blood. If you want to take the land from me or anyone similarly situated, you’re going to have to do it with guns.

That’s an attitude that can only exist for small landowners. Maybe we should try a scheme that doesn’t put them on the same footing with institutional investors. I really don’t like being on the same side of an issue as an investment bank. --but I like it a lot more than your plan to set the middle class back a hundred years.

Either way I think we’re done here. Take it easy.

A land contract is a sale. So is a private mortgage. I don’t want to be condescending here, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that you know what those terms mean when you use them as examples. Your regime also expects that the seller carry the note (which in every or almost every jurisdiction is how a land contract works now–it’s almost indistinguishable from a mortgage as a matter of law–and in any jurisdiction where I’m wrong about this, it’s worse for the buyer anyway). If the seller is put in a position where you’re trying to incentivize them to sell, demanding that they bear additional risk and cost isn’t going to do that. I also assume you understand that this scenario increases the likelihood that the seller is the one left holding the bag if the bad credit purchaser defaults. Is it fair to assume the purchaser has bad credit? Yes, because purchasers with excellent credit and assets can already buy property now.

Doubling property taxes doesn’t get you the result you want either. It just hurts the small owners, because property tax doesn’t care how many properties you own; it only cares about the property to which it’s attached. Large corporations don’t care about a doubled property tax, because they can just eat it and raise the rents. They’re already colluding to fix rents, and that’s the whole problem. Tax credit for an occupier? Terrific. We’ll put the CEO in the penthouse, put the rest of the C suite in our other penthouses downtown, and use the extra cash for stock buybacks.

What’s actually needed is a wealth tax. Don’t penalize someone for owning a nice house. Penalize them for owning thirty houses.

Now, I agree in principle that more people should be able to own land, and I also agree that the current situation in which land is being increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer ultra-rich entities is unsustainable (and heinous, besides). But the “if you’re currently a landlord, you should be forced to sell your property to whoever you might otherwise rent it to” just doesn’t work. You simply can’t make it attractive enough, because you can’t change the reality that most renters just can’t afford to buy the property. If they could, the problem wouldn’t exist. If I own valuable property, there’s no magic hand-waving you can do that is going to make me want to sell to someone who can’t afford it, because I know they can’t afford it! All putting their name on the deed does is ensure that the property gets sold when they default on the note, and whoever’s holding the note has to cry foreclosure (and guess what? That does cost money and labor to the mortgagee, since the defaulting buyer is probably bankrupt/judgment proof).

So I’ll just turn the place into a hog farm instead. Now instead of renting the house I inherited from the last generation to another family while I wait for my kids to grow up (a situation I expect to find myself in within the next decade or two), I’m instead going to find another way to make it valuable. There’s no universe in which I’m going to sell it. I feel like that kind of scenario accounts for a lot of the upper middle class in the next fifty years, all else being the same. Putting those folks in the same boat with the corporate landlords is shooting your agenda in the foot.

Oh there are plenty of ways to make a property profitable. Selling it–which is both of the examples you offered–is one of the worst ways, however, and that’s why those fortunate enough to own land tend to pursue alternatives first. If you stop them from being able to rent by fiat, they’re not going to sell as a result. They’ll do something else profitable–and probably unsavory–instead.

Yeah, you’d think.

“Many” is the operative word there. It’s not all–not by a manure-covered mile. If you ever want to do a deep dive down a fun legislative rabbit-hole, dig into right-to-farm law, agricultural zoning, and the history of nuisance litigation. I might not be able to put a hog farm next to a tenement building downtown in a major metropolitan (or I might be surprised to find that, in fact, I can, if I’m willing to pony up for the land), but there are plenty of places where I could.

In any event, the example is ultimately hypothetical. The point is that trying to exterminate landlords can have disastrous knock-on effects, foreseen or otherwise.

Rant warning (that’s the end of the response; the rest is just venting about inequality).

It’s no accident that the American Dream is about owning land. Land ownership is central to our national identity, born as we are out of generations of homesteaders, tenant-farmers, explorers, slaves, and frontiersmen who rightly made no distinction between the tyranny of the plantation and that of the feudal lord (and that of the modern slumlord). Everyone wants land, and who can blame them? For a hundred-thousand years, owning land has been the best, most reliable route to prosperity and, ultimately, generational wealth.

The problem isn’t that landlords exist. It’s that landlords are rich. And notably, it’s absolutely not all of them. I don’t really have any beef with a professional who does well, retires, and buys a little summer house he rents out to vacationers eight months out of the year. The fact that it’s a profitable undertaking doesn’t really unravel the social fabric, since the profit motive is the only reason vacation homes exist for people (like me) who want them and have yet to save up enough to buy one outright.

Ultimately the problem is, as always, wealth disparity. A vacation home isn’t a big deal. A monopoly on an entire vacation community, however, is a different matter, because with it comes price fixing, capture of the local government, corruption, abuse, and all the worst consequences of gentrification–you know, capitalism. And again, it’s a problem you solve by taxing hoards of wealth, whether they’re in any individual’s pocket or hidden in a corporate offshore vault or securities labyrinth. It’s a problem we already solved a generation or two ago: Accumulate more wealth, pay more taxes, and continue to pay progressively more taxes until the profit motive is completely overshadowed by the societal benefit (via tax) of the new wealth generated. If you own a building in midtown Manhattan, you should get to pocket only the tiniest fraction of the rents it brings in. Not profitable enough? Then sell it. Plenty of the rest of us will stand in line to take it off your hands. Your corporation that hoovers up neighborhoods all over the country is suddenly in the red because a society-serving tax regime punishes you for said hoovering? Guess you better sell off some homes and watch the market correct itself.

All of that is to say that landlords serve an important function in an ordered society–providing the temporary use of otherwise unused land to persons who have not yet accumulated enough wealth to own their own land outright. We should not aspire to do away with that function, but rather simply to tax rent-seeking at a level that serves the society at large. It should be profitable to own a vacation home. It should never be profitable to own six.

Okay, I’ll bite. I own a house. Now suppose I buy another house. It’s empty. It’s not someone else’s home. Under the proposed rule (“you don’t get to own somebody else’s home”), I can’t rent the house-shaped building to someone as a residence. So now instead, I’m turning the second house into a pig farm and hiring laborers to raise and slaughter pigs on it, because the state insists that I have to put the land to work. [That’s what property tax is.]

I’m still profiting off of someone else’s labor, the would-be tenant is homeless, and I’m destroying a neighborhood. Somehow this doesn’t seem like a win to me–for anyone.

I am strongly in favor of protections for tenants: no one should be constructively evicted, rents should be controlled everywhere, and price-fixing by landlord cartels should result in prison sentences. BUT rental residences arise as a natural consequence of the freedom to contract. The solution to slumlords who fund entire generations of descendents by lucking into a valuable tower at the turn of the century is not “getting rid of landlords.” It’s just tax.

Full disclosure: I’m not a landlord, but I’ve both rented and am fortunate enough to own my own home now. I have also litigated both sides of evictions. I’ve seen bad landlords put the screws to impoverished tenants, and I’ve also seen spiteful tenants utterly destroy properties with essentially no recourse. This is not a problem you solve with magical thinking.

We have not created the heavens and the earth and everything in between except for a purpose. And the Hour is certain to come, so forgive graciously.

15:85 Quran

I’m incredibly fascinated by the ghost comparison. Is the probability that ghosts are a real physical phenomenon higher or lower than the probability that aliens exist or have visited us? That’s an extremely interesting question, and I’m sure someone could do a statistical meta-analysis comparing the incidence of, say, UFO sightings with the incidence of paranormal experiences (if such an analysis doesn’t already exist). Both questions seem like the things that should be generally empirically falsifiable (and indeed, specific instances certainly are), but humanity’s curiosity about both has proven remarkably durable despite centuries of curiosity and myriad efforts to settle (negatively) both questions once and for all.

Oh shit, you’re right. Russia doesn’t want that, so I guess we should just let them have what they want.

What are you on about? This is a war in which Russia, unprovoked, invaded its neighbor to grab land, bodies, ports, and food. Russia is going to share multiple borders with NATO when this is over; the question is just whether the border is the Ukrainian border or the Polish border. If either of those scenarios results in World War 3, odds are pretty good both of them do. There’s simply no universe in which NATO allows Russia to take over all of Eastern Europe (again). Even if the fascists take the US in November, Europe will pour everything it has into stopping Putin’s advance.

Sure, Ukraine probably “loses” in the end, in one way or another. By many measures they’ve already lost. But it’s not a binary proposition. The point of propping up Ukraine at this stage is as much about forcing Russia to spend its fighting ability on Ukraine now, instead of in WW3. This desire is part of the reason that capitulating, conceding some land, and letting Russia regroup for a decade before doing a better job next time is only palatable with Ukraine in NATO. The threat of a world war is the only thing that would stop Russia from repeating this bullshit every ten to twenty years for another five generations.

And you’re absolutely right about that. That’s not the same thing as LLMs being incapable of constituting anything written in a novel way, but that they will readily with very little prodding regurgitate complete works verbatim is definitely a problem. That’s not a remix. That’s publishing the same track and slapping your name on it. Doing it two bars at a time doesn’t make it better.

It’s so easy to get ChatGPT, for example, to regurgitate its training data that you could do it by accident (at least until someone published it last year). But, the critics cry, you’re using ChatGPT in an unintended way. And indeed, exploiting ChatGPT to reveal its training data is a lot like lobotomizing a patient or torture victim to get them to reveal where they learned something, but that really betrays that these models don’t actually think at all. They don’t actually contribute anything of their own; they simply have such a large volume of data to reorganize that it’s (by design) impossible to divine which source is being plagiarised at any given token.

Add to that the fact that every regulatory body confronted with the question of LLM creativity has so far decided that humans, and only humans, are capable of creativity, at least so far as our ordered societies will recognize. By legal definition, ChatGPT cannot transform (term of art) a work. Only a human can do that.

It doesn’t really matter how an LLM does what it does. You don’t need to open the black box to know that it’s a plagiarism machine, because plagiarism doesn’t depend on methods (or sophisticated mental gymnastics); it depends on content. It doesn’t matter whether you intended the work to be transformative: if you repeated the work verbatim, you plagiarized it. It’s already been demonstrated that an LLM, by definition, will repeat its training data a non-zero portion of the time. In small chunks that’s indistinguishable, arguably, from the way a real mind might handle language, but in large chunks it’s always plagiarism, because an LLM does not think and cannot “remix”. A DJ can make a mashup; an AI, at least as of today, cannot. The question isn’t whether the LLM spits out training data; the question is the extent to which we’re willing to accept some amount of plagiarism in exchange for the utility of the tool.