Jump to content

Samson's Wig

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Samson's Wig

  1. I would believe that 51% of Harvard students think this way, but no way 51% of Americans do. Polls are stupid.
  2. The humor there was that it was an aggie that punched his douche face. All the violence was aggie on aggie. Otherwise it was high school kids with a goal post.
  3. Still no N antibodies for this guy as of bloodwork last week, despite wife and son having had the rona at different times in the last couple of years. I like to think I'm some form of mutant who just can't get it (although it's more likely the vaccinations and working from home).
  4. Hans Rosling. Factfulness is definitely worth a read.
  5. I agree completely with what you're saying. I think the mistake is thinking that any of these attempts to change the zoning and code regs have anything to do with actually helping with housing in Austin. It's about lining the pockets of a handful of folks, and they make more money building 2 and 3 unit properties in central Austin that can be quickly sold to investors for use as short-term rentals than they do with an apartment/condo building (and thereby making the housing situation worse, not better). If they actually wanted to add affordable housing, then of course apartment buildings are the answer, but that's not how the grift is set up. Developers want to build cheaply and sell quickly, not maintain a building. Supposedly we have a bunch of new apartments coming onto the market soon. I have no idea where and haven't noticed significant amounts of construction, but I keep hearing that they're coming. I don't know if they'll be real apartments or those money laundering bullshit condo buildings we have downtown that no actual working humans live in. Any significant apartment development should be scattered throughout town, though, and not crammed into one area. I agree that using existing multi-unit locations is the smart move. The problem is the lack of interest in developing such properties. Just like banning short-term rentals, this obvious solution isn't one the crooked assholes in charge have any interest in because it's not how their bread is buttered.
  6. Otherwise known as MTG country. Lots of edumacated folks up 'at way.
  7. One was some kind of road rage incident involving people shooting on the highway who I don't believe live in the area. Another was an accidental shooting at a home, whatever that entails. The third (the one inside 360) was very recent and not many details are available, but someone murdered a woman and dropped her body in the neighborhood, then lit it on fire. About as grisly as it gets.
  8. I believed and did a lot of stupid shit as an 18-20 year old as well, but I never joined any hate groups. And that is exactly what most of the pro-Palestinian groups on college campuses are and always have been. I agree that many of the staunch pro-Palestinian kids on any given campus are mostly muddle-headed young folks with good intentions and still developing brains, but you can bet your ass that the student leaders of these groups are straight-up antisemitic genocidal pieces of shit, and they are methodically and purposefully steering other young people down a path of hatred. Many years ago, I went back to school for my law degree around age 30, making me the old guy in every class. My jaw hit the floor every time discussions of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict came up and I heard what came out of the mouths of some of my younger classmates. It was vile, unadulterated, racism of the nastiest kind. I have no illusions about these student groups. They're fucking evil.
  9. Damnit, now I'm hungry.
  10. He also once said the U.S. would not import any oil by the year 2020. Hope he's right about this one.
  11. So you think that the tax code should be wielded as either a weapon or a means to manipulate decision-making? That's fine, and you're not alone. I disagree that it's the least bad form of coercion. I think there are better ways of accomplishing these goals and that the tax system should be as neutral as possible so that decisions are made for economic reasons and not tax reasons. Many economists agree with this notion, and it's certainly not my idea. Who doesn't agree with this? Politicians. I'm not a free-for-all free-market proponent. I'm all for the regulation of industries (the best form of which is eliminating tort reform and allowing bad actors to pay the consequences for their actions with their pocketbook - but good old-fashioned regulation through federal and state agencies is also great). I'm also in support of propping up industries (such as your semiconductor example) through some form of subsidy which can take the form of loans, govt. contracts, etc. The tax code doesn't have to be involved in these things (although refundable tax credits can be a reasonable use of it), and its use in this manner is exactly why it's a monster full of loopholes, contradictions, and general nonsense. It's also one of the major reasons semiconductors were being built overseas in the first place - that's one problem with trying to use it for coercion, you almost always have unintended consequences. Politicians love it more than anything else because Americans don't understand it and they can use it to benefit their donors and/or punish their enemies. These are essentially the only ways the tax code is utilized anymore, even when they're dressed up as a subsidy or otherwise, and both types of uses are rife with corruption. The insanity that is the varying rates for different types of capital income is a prime example of just how bunged up the system is. Most notably, our tax code encourages debt over equity financing, which is just fucking stupid on its face and a big part of the economic woes we've seen over the last fifteen years. A completely tax-neutral system is not feasible (needed coercion should come in the form of refundable tax credits rather than deductions), but this notion should underpin any tax reform discussion, in my opinion. It would result in a more transparent, approachable, and navigable tax system that would streamline economic decisions and ultimately further stabilize our economic system - which has become shockingly fragile in the last few decades thanks in large part to our tax code.
  12. Brain food. Some people get liberal arts degrees.
  13. Albuquerque makes sense due to the labs. I'm a bit surprised it balances the rest of the city out that well, but there are a lot of folks with advanced degrees in that town working in defense. Lubbock is more of a surprise to me, but being a college town with some size must help. There's always been some money up there, mostly from ag and oil, but not a heavily educated populace (seemingly). Most Tech grads are in DFW, and I'm not sure where the jobs are in Lubbock for those with a degree. Maybe they've made some improvements on this front in recent years.
  14. I agree with the shifting notions and benefits of home ownership not necessarily making sense, but I was speaking more about the timing aspect. Yes, if someone buys under one of these programs they'll have some equity built up - so long as they live there for a very long time. If after ten years they need to move for work, family, or whatever other reason it's not that discernably different from renting. You're just paying down interest instead of a landlord, but you don't really have any equity either way. The major upshot I see is that you're locking in your monthly payment and avoiding rent increases, but that can work the other direction as well if rental rates go down (unlikely in this town in the foreseeable future I know).
  15. It's an interesting interplay between the economic benefit of being able to easily move towards economic opportunity and access to housing. Economically trapping people in their homes for thirty+ years doesn't make a lot of sense when viewed in isolation, but when weighed against access to housing at all I suppose it makes sense. Americans, in general, seem to refuse to move towards economic opportunity anyway, so as always the rational actor notion is pointless I suppose. I wonder why anyone who isn't earning significant money would move to Austin at all anymore. There are plenty of more affordable and more attractive places to live with wage-earning jobs available. They're certainly not moving here for the schools.
  16. I wonder how long the construction of many Mueller properties will hold up. Those "contemporary looking to mask shoddy workmanship" duplexes and triplexes being rapid-built all over the city center and bought up for short-term rentals are going to be giant eyesores in a decade or so, with no one around with the incentive to maintain or upgrade the shitty construction. The Mueller setup further disincentives maintenance of the property knowing you won't see any, or limited, monetary benefit from investing in upkeep or renovations. I hope they were at least built well at the onset, but I kind of doubt it.
  17. Ask a stupid question and get a simple answer. I don't think anyone took whatever lame bait he was throwing. Slorch merely earnestly answered his question. If he was looking to poke holes in the flat tax comment, a more direct approach would have made more sense. It's one of many ideas that sounds okay in theory but would never work in reality.
  18. That line of thinking may be found in any old Southern Baptist church of your choosing. Good luck and godspeed.
  19. ~40% for 2022 I believe, and quite a bit higher the two years before that. I think that must have been a pandemic bump due to lost wages/jobs. Somewhere around 10% don't bother to file at all.
  20. This. Many members of Congress think the tax code is the best way to manipulate behavior. The rest think it's the best way to pay back big donors. Both sides fucking suck, as does anyone who supports this shit.
  21. I'm pretty sure I saw in a brochure somewhere that new transplants to Austin are required to first rent in Mueller. And get a dog. And a paddle board. Isn't that the rule? Maybe I misunderstood.
  22. lol. Not what I'm saying at all, but the all too common references to unnamed studies are about as compelling as "I heard from my best friend's uncle's barber that . . ." I've already agreed that adding housing should help, simple economics certainly say so. It makes sense that legitimate studies would show this. But this isn't that simple of a problem, and adding housing by allowing developers to build more shitty condos on small lots that will be bought up by investors and used as short-term rentals will do absolutely nothing of benefit to the common person, or housing costs in general. Only a fool or someone with skin in the real estate game would claim otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...