YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdop98d wrote

So, is there a price of "I would sell in 2/3/4/6/10 heartbeats"? Because if not then there is only one price, and you just inflated it 400%.

You can ask Chat GPT "what would be economic consequences if commercial property prices were inflated 400% overnight"


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdoon5p wrote

You can see how "defining property value" tax code is exploding right at your laps? And mind that none of us is tax specialist, and still you were able to type out 4 "rules", and I can type 3 comments to each of the rules you made, and tax specialist will probably be able to type 20 comments to every rules you made, and make 250 more rules easily because they know the problematics.

The point is: what's the point of this whole overhaul? Does it really help with anything? Is it really provided that it will lead to more fair taxation?


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdom12u wrote

Ah, so your idea is "let's artificially inflate all property prices 4x at once". If I wasn't lazy and drunk on saturday I might have typed out how dumb this idea is in a different way and how it's going to shoot you in the foot, but I'm too lazy and drunk on saturday night..


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdogtcx wrote

Sure, not *your* idea but "your idea", no need to be that anal.

I gave you a very clear example how it won't work. Obligation to sell is incompatible with business plans, any competitor can upend you at any second, and it's very costly to move. It is ridiculous you demand me to explain that like it's not self evident.

So you either will have to set price very high, and pay ridiculous property taxes only to avoid being uprooted by a competitor, or risk being uprooted every day. With incentives like that "what can go wrong? /s".


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdo0zi6 wrote

California has coastline of 840 miles, beaches visited by ~130 million people per year. NJ has coastline of 130 miles, visited roughly by ~48 million people per year.

  • California has 150,000 visits per mile, NJ has 370,000 visits per mile (246% more)
  • California has 3.3 beach visits per state citizen, NJ has 5.3 beach visits per citizen (160% more)

So NJ beaches are 246% more packed and it happens 160% more often that in CA.

But it's probably mostly because of the culture of boroughitis. NJ towns surely love to behave like city-states in medieval Italy.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdnwwno wrote

Just don't get too excited. Georgists collectively ignore its problems, namely defining land value, which is the main revenue source but is affected by so many factors, and since it would be the only revenue source, then calculating the land value would become as complex as the whole current tax code. E.g. nice little mom&pop shop you got there, would be a shame if oil would be found under it and hike land value tax through the roof, or if a new subway line would hike it, etc.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdi6yze wrote

The meaning of the term "scientism" is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.". Yet the article says: "there is 'excessive' scientism, and 'not excessive' scientism, but no one holds that excessive scientism views, so we won't discuss them".

>...most attention has been focused on the most radical version (upper left corner), which states that the natural sciences are the only valid form of knowledge. This is a pretty extreme view, which would imply that all of the humanities and social sciences are just rubbish. I believe this version of scientism is relatively easy to knock down, but in fact barely anyone holds it

So not only the article perverted the meaning of the term, but after that they artificially pre-picked only 'good' meanings, and this way "proved" that scientism is therefore good for you. Very scientific way to "prove" things.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jde1k8q wrote

>They tried the saving mission

This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".

>start doing what the scientists recommend

As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcw130 wrote

There are signs of looming local catastrophes, that can be mitigated if we do enough. We should be talking about saving those people, that would be a positive twist. A saving mission, what can be more noble and relatable to westerners?

Instead Antonio uses fear. And I agree with one grandma that recently said on TV in relation to republicans banning books: "Fear is not future. Fear is control"

And Antonio using fear is not begging, Antonio is manipulating for control.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcrh3g wrote

Really? My dude, it was the last one you quoted, come on. It is talking about supporting water supplies with the restoration of ecosystems, basically recommending a path for vulnerable areas to reduce or maybe even remove a risk to their water supply.

>...combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence)

What is the best hint that your mind skips over good stuff and over-focuses on the bad than this? It's not healthy for you or anyone.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd945q9 wrote

"Wildfires are predicted to be larger, and wildfires happen in the world, so 'the world is burning' is a correct phrase, and if you don't see how this makes sense, then you're silly climate denier!!!" - gist of your comment

I also noted how you managed to find and highlight doom words even in paragraphs dedicated to positive things, like wildlife restorations, this really tells a whole story about doomers, they will find doom-words anywhere and conjure up a world of them while ignoring everything else.

What you and Antonio do has beed described in a form of comic long time ago: https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2013/08/0c729810e4e921d67bf898e0069f88b8.jpg


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd4e0og wrote

Sice you mentioned really good example of how it should be done, I'm done discussing Antonios bullshit .

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a).

This one is actually a great scientific report. I used technical summary since whole report is too large.

Not too hard to understand. For those who don't have time to read there is an awesome list of Representative Key Risk on page 113, as well is great succinct recap on them:

>For most RKRs, potentially global and systemically pervasive risks become severe in the case of high levels of warming, combined with high exposure/vulnerability, low adaptation or both

And looks like it says exactly what I highlighted: in vulnerable regions that fail to adapt.

Who would have thought?.. /s

Page 116 is actually brilliant sum up of risks and *conditions* under which under which risks could become severe. Note how real science does not talk "doom, inevitable doom and death, grave, grave, point of no return"? This is the whole point of my rant.

I gotta thank you now that I have scientific report to point it is going to be easier to drive my point that doomers are just that, doomers. There is no inevitability, it is not global, it is not indiscriminate, it is not unconditional and here is a scientific report that point that out: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary.pdf


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd3th56 wrote

>your second link has a link to the climate report he’s citing

That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.

>Go read the reports and get back to me.

Why? You can't read yourself?


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd35yq3 wrote

I never was ignorant and listened to scientist opinion on the matter since I first got a wind of it 20 years now.

You making accusations and assumptions is just you making yourself an excuse to continue supporting people making hysterical doomer false comments and hurting other people's lives and futures with those comments. Lives that should not have been otherwise hurt by any real climate danger.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd2hyfx wrote

I am not making any independent statements. I completely and fully rely on opinion of experts in the field (Antonio is not an expert in the field). If I rely on experts' opinion I don't need to be a climate scientist to make correct statements.

Reports he gets from scientists are fine. Opinions he spits out in doomsday manner that are *nowhere to find* in those reports are full of shit.