I think their point is not the ESG component, but firms with traditionally irrational valuations (à la GameStop) for which index inclusion exceptions have been made to facilitate short term liquidity for IPO participants. Seems as though one should be able to hold the broad market less that component.
They can, but they don't gain altitude so good. I had one fly across the road at top-of-windshield level. Since I figured it would just clear or just glance off, I did nothing to avoid it.
Unfortunately, I had a roof rack on. Fortunately, I was able to find replacement parts for the rack on eBay.
The turkey didn't appear to be harmed. After tumbling ass over teakettle to the ground, it walked into the field on the side of the road looking for all the world like a cat that wanted you to forget you'd just seen it do something beneath its dignity.
The absolute favorite activity of my dog is to chase groups of turkeys that are in our yard. She’s only 15 pounds (and 15 years old now) and has never caught one, but I think being in the middle of a group of 20 turkeys all desperately trying to fly up to trees quickly is quite the experience for her.
She’s never caught one, even the younger ones. It seems like they can actually fly easier than the adults.
I walked out one morning and had a whole flock of them on the pergola on our second story deck. I was pretty surprised that they managed to get up there, three stories off the ground.
At the same time, they dont seem to be able to fly well when they panic. I let my dogs out one morning not knowing there was a turkey in their fenced area. The turkey freaked out and flew straight into the fence. Never seen a dog move as fast as my 70lb chow/cattle dog mix moved that morning.
I am guessing you live in a place where turkeys were introduced as game birds (such as California). Because in their native range turkeys are wary of humans and other preditors. That’s why turkey hunting involves calls and camouflage and patience…
Turkeys are one of the animals in that general category that, knowing what we know now, you look at them and you're like "How could smart scientists not look at them and not see that they are obviously a form of dinosaur?"
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is nearly as old as evolution itself, first being proposed by Thomas Huxley in 1868 (Origin of the Species dates from 1859).
The only reason there was a competing evolutionary theory is because it was erroneously thought that birds have a clavicle and dinosaurs don't, so instead it was proposed that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, and that dinosaurs lost the clavicle. Now that they have excavated many more bones paleontologists have since discovered therapod clavicles.
We don't "know" that, because that's not a category of thing we can know or not know. It's a matter of semantics of whether we consider birds dinosaurs, just like it's a matter of semantics of whether we consider people a kind of fish.
"Know" in science is used informally to mean "the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. Which could turn out to be wrong if enough contrary evidence is later found."
The scientific consensus today is that the evidence supports the idea that not all the dinosaurs died out when the Chicxulub comet struck 66 million years ago. The ones that could fly or quickly learn how to fly survived and even thrived, and their grandkids are in your back yard right now.
You're not understanding my point. The scientific evidence is that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Scientific evidence can't make birds be dinosaurs, because it's up to us to define "bird" and "dinosaur", and we can define "bird" to exclude dinosaur (and I think most people still do). Just like we can define "fish" and "human", and we can define "fish" to exclude human, even though some fish learned how to walk on land and one of their grandkids is typing this comment right now. Biologists might wish that we all adopt cladistic definitions for types of organisms, but that doesn't the world will follow.
It's almost worse that, if you go back a ways, a lot of the theories were that extinction was fairly incremental--even comet/meteor notwithstanding. So, given essentially total extinction, convergent evolution may not have been a bad theory and may not even have been totally wrong.
Loved WKRP in Cincinnati. Always looked forward to the hog report. Not only can turkeys fly they bounce, too. A lot of unknowns, at the time, made appearances on that show before becoming famous themselves.
CLARKE BROWN: The turkey drop was actually a real incident. ... Although the turkeys were thrown off the back of a truck, as opposed to how it was depicted on the [show].
I was thinking of this episode the other day and wondering how it could have stuck with all of us independently after all these years given that there was no social media / meme sharing back then.
Why not? No law of physics prevents it and we already have examples of (albeit simpler) organisms that can live forever. Worst case scenario, we grow a clone of your body, transplant your brain into it, then somehow repair the spinal cord and slowly replace your brain tissue piece-by-piece. Might be a difficult engineering challenge but it’s 100% possible.
(not intending ot be snarky, but this isn't my area of knowledge in the least.) Didn't the AI organizations 'get it both ways' when they trained on vast collection of works under copyright and then purely "own' the outcome?
That's not snarky at all, that's exactly the point. They did get it both ways.
The comment I was responding to argued that ownership of non-physical things is basically a "polite lie" and that information is just entropy that belongs to whoever can capture it. My point was that the AI companies clearly don't believe that when it applies to them. They patent their architectures, copyright their outputs, sue competitors for IP violations, and lock down their model weights. They fully believe in ownership of non-physical things.
But when it comes to the billions of people whose work they trained on? Suddenly information is free-flowing entropy that belongs to no one.
That's the asymmetry at the heart of this. The rules around IP apparently apply when it protects their profits, but not when it would obligate them to share those profits with the people whose work made them possible. Which is exactly why the public needs to assert a claim now, before that asymmetry gets any more entrenched.
Also worth knowing: collective intellectual property already exists. ASCAP and BMI have been doing exactly this for decades. Individual songwriters can't enforce their rights every time their music gets played, so they pool their IP, license it collectively, and distribute the revenue. The problem they solved is almost identical to the training data problem. Each individual contribution is tiny, but the collective value is enormous. Applying this at the scale of the general public would be novel, but the underlying mechanism isn't. The concept works. It just hasn't been applied to training data yet.
I mean, the AI companies want it this way, but the same laws of information apply to them too. They can patent whatever they want, but as we see other nations use their models to distill information to other models with almost nothing they can do about it.
Patents, copyright, lawsuits are all post ad hoc actions which mean the milk has already been stolen. And it only works if the rule of law is something that is respected, that's not going so well lately.
We are seeing this in that there is little to no moat between the models, nearly everyone with the needed compute seems to catch up pretty quickly. And when said rivalries cross national boarders the only solution to these problems quickly becomes violence.
With how information works AI wins this game in the long run. Individual humans scale poorly and their ability to individually acquire information is a slow process. Looking at this on a company by company basis is not the proper way to show how the future with models is going to play out.
This is interesting.
As a naive user I’ve gotten the gut feeling of commoditization among the models. I assumed the data center capacity push is intended to be the differentiator but that still seems utility-like over time. (and the data centers in space concept seems like good PR and IR, but to me, technically… ambitious)
> In your opinion, what is the best approach, if any, to attempt to address it?
There aren't many options for fighting the tax man, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes". You're only option is to leave the US for somewhere better.
Correct, the US is one of the few countries that tries to collect (Federal) income tax from all citizens regardless of the country they are currently living in. To be fair, when you can prove that income is entirely foreign (not a single US company in the chain of ownership) that income becomes almost entirely deductible and the tax reporting essentially just a census on how well US citizens are doing from an income standpoint globally. (For people that want economics analyses of US influence in global politics, that census can be handy to spin.)
I think the root problem with how the US currently spends its tax dollars is the above "vote with your wallet" belief in the first place. "Vote with your wallet" implies that the rich deserve more votes. That's not (representative) democracy, that is oligarchy. Right now the US has two political parties that are both "vote with your wallet parties". They both act like they are bake sales that constantly need everyone's $20 bills just to "survive", but as much as anything they are trying to make US citizens complicit in agreeing that the rich deserve more votes and should control more US policy.
I think the only real solution to a lot of US ills is drastic Campaign Finance Reform.
Minor correction, expat income is deductible up to (currently) $130k under the FEIE. After that it's taxes as usual. There's also an array of other mandatory forms like FBAR for foreign accounts, and the nightmare that is form 5471, with absolutely wild allowances for the IRS to impose penalties, often with no statute of limitations and per-violation fines. For example, a US citizen with multiple bank accounts and a mistake in FBAR reporting for multiple years running will be liable for the (iirc) $10,000 fine for each bank account, and each year (e.g. 4 accounts, 8 years, $320,000 fine).
Living and doing business overseas is as a US citizen is a high risk endeavor.
FEIE is only one of the options for avoiding federal income tax. The other is the Foreign Tax Credit, which has no such limit: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1116.pdf. If the place an American lives and works has a higher income tax rate than the US one, in practice he will not face any tax liability, regardless of income level.
Unfortunately, campaign finance reform would possibly require a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a big shift in how the supreme court views things (so, not likely in my lifetime), since the current jurisprudence is that limiting campaign donations is a violation of first amendment rights.
Yes, many countries have significant limits on campaign donations. Even third parties are restricted from advertising on behalf of a party, and so on.
So no company can simply donate large sums of money, nor can any single person.
The goal is that individuals will be the largest donors, not companies, and that as everyone is capped in the same way, advertising will be a more level playing field. We don't want money in politics. At the same time, we want all parties to get their message out there, their message heard.
It's not perfect. There are issues. But this business of democracy should be taken seriously.
The US technically even has laws that that were supposed to do that still on the books. A particular problem was a very broken decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [1] that opened too large of a barn door that the US has been reeling from ever since. That trial argued that companies were individuals/people and that money was the "free speech" of companies and shouldn't ever be curtailed. So there are so many things wrong with that court case on so many levels. It led to the rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees), companies designed to launder money for political gain where the donors are allowed to remain anonymous and the Super PAC "speak" for them, because now it was "free speech" and not bribes and regulatory capture.
I know pessimists that believe the only way the US succeeds in the Campaign Finance Reform it needs now is through a Constitutional Amendment and if we can't count on Congress to be interested in it (due to bribery), and not enough individual States seem to care (some because they want a chunk of that pie), it's going to take a full Constitutional Convention to pass that amendment, something that hasn't successfully been done in the US since 1787 (also, the first attempt).
There have been some fairly longstanding judicial decisions overturned recently, although I know the reasons are not in alignment with the decision you mention, it does mean there is hope for such change.
So maybe it's actually far less work than considered. Maybe, attacking the decision with a modern eye is helpful.
Citizens United was a 2010 decision. Several of the judges on that case are still sitting judges in the Supreme Court. Since then one of the Congressional oversight decisions on vetting replacements for Supreme Court judges has been whether or not they (at least claim to) agree with the Citizens United decision.
The decision was made in the modern eye, in my lifetime. (The country needed modern Campaign Finance Reform before that point as well, but that decision marks an inflection point from Campaign Finance Reform feeling possible through normal means and court decisions to nearly impossible to overturn in our lifetimes.)
For the ultra-wealthy, leaving the United States is rarely the preferred strategy; instead, they use their immense resources to legally reshape the tax code and utilize complex loopholes. Billionaires like the Koch and Scaife families historically avoided massive estate and gift taxes by creating "charitable lead trusts" and private foundations. This allowed them to pass fortunes down to their heirs tax-free, provided they donated the interest to charities (which they often controlled) for a set period. A powerful approach is to fund political movements to slash taxes for the top brackets. For example, a coalition of eighteen of the wealthiest US families spent nearly half a billion dollars collectively to successfully lobby for the reduction and eventual repeal of the "death tax" (estate tax), saving themselves an estimated $71 billion.
And, of course, in the ancient world, free citizens of Greece and Rome considered direct taxes tyrannical and usually avoided them, leaving such burdens to conquered populations.
So I guess taxes are uncertain, but only for the oligarchy.
Clinical studies today are funded entirely by the pharma companies, keep that. Selling at cost of production would be something extra, for patients who want the drugs but aren't enrolled in an actual study. The company doesn't get solid data it can use for regulatory approval, so making them donate the drugs in that case seems excessive.
A downside would be that for drugs that don't cost much to produce, patients might be less willing to enroll in the studies, given the chance of getting a placebo. That could be handled by shutting down the informal access while the study is enrolled, for anyone who's eligible. I'm sure there are other wrinkles that would need to be considered too.
Put this way, this seems reasonable. Beyond cell therapy, I don't thin the cost of drug is the motivation for not making it more freely available. 'Misuse' leading to potential liability or unjustified bad outcomes, along with some regulatory burden seems like the issue.
Knowing whether drugs work isn’t trivial. Patients are typically very heterogeneous in their responses to drugs. For example, pembrolizumab (the most successful cancer drug ever) typically only works in, say 30% of patients depending of the cancer type. Just throwing therapeutic ideas out there and letting physicians sort out how to use them and in which patients, isn’t a panacea. Looking at clinical data can be like star gazing even in planned studies. Structured, statistically powered studies, and costly rigorous assays on biomarkers and correlative studies are essential for understanding how and in what patients drugs are working. I’m all for expanding access to drugs, and there is abundant waste and greed in big Pharma and venture, but there are also people doing hard expensive science, medicine and manufacturing. Im not sure I have the answer. A “yelp for medicine” won’t improve immediate outcomes, nor longer term understanding and progress. A great and excruciating read about the tension there is a real-time blog (the story’s story) that was written by Jake Seliger unt he passed in 2023.
Go watch or listen to Plenary Session, and you'll have direct access to his thoughts. My ability to rehash Prasad's arguments doesn't have any bearing on what I wrote.
reply