I’m just writing from the hip today about reading.
Since my first kid was born my reading has cratered to like 3 books a year. While Zak is a convenient scapegoat, the truth is moving to CA is the true culprit. I no longer had that 45-minute E-train commute from Long Island City to the NYMEX. That trenta-sized ice coffee with a paperback was a luxurious start to the morning before switching into literal arena mode (shout out to the main character of fintwit this week).
Zak is 10 and I’m emerging from the fog. I’m on my 12th book this year, participating in my first ever book club and likely joining another. The Kindle app has also helped — the phone is morphing from a pile of Instagram wedged between slices of group chats into a book sandwich (separate thought, but a great use of LLM tech would be to classify a text message into time-sensitive or not and only send notifications for the former).
This year I’ve read:
I’m currently reading 3 books simultaneously:
The simplest non-obvious questions are like: Do Uber drivers deduct their car’s depreciation from their hourly wage (I see you Jim)? How many businesses actually suck once you properly adjust for maintenance capex or what Buffett calls “owner’s earnings”?
And much more complicated questions wrangle with — just how much greener is an electric vehicle than a fossil-fuel vehicle (suspect it has a lot to do with where these vehicles are located so you get the non-sound-byte-friendly answer: “it depends”).
Another thought: While my interest in Georgism was sparked by normative concerns, the most interesting part of it comes from its accounting — specifically the philosophical basis for distinguishing land and other natural resources from capital. It’s an amazing reminder that the connotations of big words like “capitalism” are loaded with design choices in how we do accounting and none of it is a natural law like gravity. Economic policy is not physics. How we understand it is tightly and invisibly wound around our basic accounting definitions.
(There is nothing about capitalism which suggests that we should account for the land and sky differently, but we do. Which implies that how we treat land is not resting on the principles of capitalism. Which strongly suggests that painting changes in land accounting as anti-capitalist is a self-interested sleight of hand. The Georgist approach actually strikes me as far more in the spirit of capitalism. I sense plenty of room for thoughtful counterpoints but the average reaction to Georgist principles are just the confessions of people habituated to regurgitating convenient viewpoints. And that’s me trying to be nice.)
If you care to appreciate what this means, it’s best to observe the building of an economic framework from first principles. Give it a try.
Go to:
https://notion.moontowermeta.com/moontower-refactors-lars-doucets-review-of-progress-poverty and rip thru the following sections:
📒Defining Terms
👷🏾♂️Wages, Capital, and Labor
🔀The Laws of Distribution
Books I’m reading aloud with my kids (as I risk afflicting them with the “read several books at once” disease)
These aren’t in order. I impulsively pick in the moment. Fiction books will come from the book clubs so they are TBD.
Technical books
Friends, Trading firms are Rand-pilled cloisters of libertarianism. Is it a self-serving post-hoc rationalization of…
In the spirit of spaced repetition, I published The Gamma of Levered ETFs as an…
Trading firms are Rand-pilled cloisters of libertarianism. Is it a self-serving post-hoc rationalization of meitrocracy…
Today is about option execution. It’s a blanket response to a host of misunderstandings I…
My wife Yinh pinged Khe to see if he’d host a seminar for people interested…
One of the best reasons to write online, which I hadn’t anticipated when I started,…