#the worlds dumbest 'analysis' but analysis nonetheless

[comradekatara]

people have pointed out before that zuko probably didn't actually know any of the gaang's names before joining their group. according to the data i've collected, it is unclear as to whether zuko knew any of their names before "the boiling rock," in which he addresses sokka by name multiple times. at no point in the show does he refer to toph, suki, or momo by name.

i find it particularly funny that zuko only seems to refer to katara by name after sokka says her name during their conversation in his tent; the transcript for "the southern raiders" reads as follows:

Sokka: So what's on your mind?

Zuko: Your sister. She hates me! And I don't know why, but I do care what she thinks of me.

Sokka: Nah, she doesn't hate you. Katara doesn't hate anyone. Except maybe some people in the Fire Nation. No, I mean, uh, not people who are good, but used to be bad. I mean, bad people. Fire Nation people who are still bad, who've never been good and probably won't be, ever!

Zuko: Stop. Okay, listen. I know this may seem out of nowhere, but I want you to tell me what happened to your mother.

Sokka: What? Why would you want to know that?

Zuko: Katara mentioned it before when we were imprisoned together in Ba Sing Se, and again just now when she was yelling at me.

we can thus assume that zuko went into this conversation knowing katara only as "[sokka's] sister," heard sokka refer to someone named "katara," and finally connected the dots.

i think the gaang according to zuko is just "the avatar, the avatar's bison, the avatar's.... little rat thing, sokka, sokka's sister, sokka's girlfriend, and, yknow, uhhhhh, the little green one."

#zuko #analysis #the worlds dumbest 'analysis' but analysis nonetheless #i made a spreadsheet and everything! #also i checked in crossroads of destiny and he never says kataras name #she says HIS name multiple times #and yet. ! #kinda rude that he didnt know kataras name until he decided he was sick of her not having forgiven him yet #skjfdkjfkgjhg #like u wanna win her over???? with THAT attitude???? #LMFAO #spreadsheets

[publiciti]

The Robot Tax: Good Plan or Dumb Idea?

This past weekend, Bill Gates joined a growing number of people calling for a Robot Tax in order to quell the potential negative impacts of automation. Is this a solid plan? Or just a new form of tech-paranoia?

By Jason M. Davis

Fear of technology taking over jobs is no new theme, however in most cases, technology has improved productivity and created demand for new labor.

However, some see today’s tech advances as more accelerated and drastic, therefore can potentially lead to a dramatic impact on the labor market. This fear has lead many experts to consider a tax in which could be applied to such technology, and redistributed in some form back to those who suffered job losses.

Below is analysis of the two sides of this argument, one from Bill Gates, who recently affirmed his support for a robot tax, and the other from Matthew Lynn, a MarketWatch columnist who recently responded to Gates’ proposal

Gates:

“What the world wants is to take this opportunity to make the goods and services we have today, and free up labor… If you take the labor that used to do all the things that automation replaces, and both financially and training wise, and fulfillment-wise and have this person go off and do these other things [elderly care, helping kids with special needs, and other areas where there is a shortage of labor], you are ‘net ahead’. He says. “But you can’t just give up that income tax, because that is part of how you’ve been funding that level of human workers”.

Analysis: Here, Gates embraces the argument for innovation. More technology=higher productivity, and allows humans to spend time doing other things. The issue, is whether or not these “other things” pay as well, or if there is enough of a supply of these “other things” for people to do.

“Right now if a human worker does $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed,” he told Quartz. “If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think we would tax the robot at a similar level.”

Analysis: This example is overly-simplified, but it gets Gates’ point across. The truth is, owners will substitute robots for humans because they are less costly, meaning that taxing robots will bring less revenue than its human counterpart. Nonetheless, it will help governments make up the gap.

Lynn:

“First, there is no evidence to suggest that robots will destroy jobs — rather than simply change the type of work people do”

Analysis: Lynn is not incorrect here. But if we wait around for concrete evidence, then it might be too late to do something about it. The way one reads this statement boils down to whether you see this through a “progressive” lens or a “conservative” one. But in itself, it not controversial.

“Next, robots won’t be paying the taxes — people will...The tax will simply be paid by the owner. If we want them to pay higher taxes, we might as well charge them directly — rather than do it via the robot.”

Analysis: Again, Lynn is correct here, but misses the point. Yes, tax on capital is passed onto either the producer or the buyer. But we tax that capital, because of its direct impact on society. Producers will still have the choice of whether or not to produce the robot. If we tax the companies and innovators directly, that simply disincentivizes innovation in general. I don’t think that's the point here.

“Finally, and perhaps most importantly, when you tax something you get less of it. That’s why we tax cigarettes or gas-guzzling cars at high rates — because we’d like people to give up smoking, or drive more fuel-efficient vehicles.”

Analysis: Ahhhh! Have you ever heard of the Elasticity of Demand Mr. Lynn? Its a bit complicated, but it basically teaches us that not all taxes have the same impact on people’s decisions. For example, a tax on the iPhone will have a different impact than a tax on gas-guzzlers. Most people will still buy the iPhone because it is so crucial to their lives. But the gas-guzzlers have a ton of substitutes, so people can easily buy something else. I guess Mr. Lynn doesn’t think that elasticity of demand applies to robots, or is simply unaware that it exists.

Source: Quartz; Market Watch

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-says-robots-should-pay-taxes-if-they-take-your-job-2017-02-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/taxing-robots-is-bill-gatess-dumbest-idea-yet-2017-02-22

#robots #bill gates #technology #tech #labor #economy #automation #unemployment #taxes #public policy