I agree it’s strange to see a lot of writing effort put into something with such basic argumentation mistakes… it really seems disturbingly similar to lightly edited LLM output.
Though to be fair many posts on LW nowadays seem to make really weird assumptions and/or jumping intermediate steps.
It would be helpful if you could clearly specify the “basic argumentation mistakes” you see in the original article. The parent comment mentioned two main points: (1) the claim that I’m being misleading by listing costs of an LVT without comparing them to benefits, and (2) the claim that an LVT would likely replace existing taxes rather than add to them.
If I’m wrong on point (2), that would likely stem from complex empirical issues, not from a basic argumentation mistake. So I’ll focus on point (1) here.
Regarding (1), my article explicitly stated that its purpose was not to offer a balanced evaluation, but to highlight potential costs of an LVT that I believe are often overlooked or poorly understood. This is unlike the analogy given, where someone reviews a car only by noting its price while ignoring its features. The disanalogy is that, in the case of a car review, the price is already transparent and easily verifiable. However, with an LVT, the costs are often unclear, downplayed, or poorly communicated in public discourse, at least in my experience on twitter.
By pointing out these underdiscussed costs, I’m aiming to provide readers with information they may not have encountered, helping them make a more informed overall judgment. Moreover, I explicitly and prominently linked to a positive case for an LVT and encouraged readers to compare both perspectives to reach a final conclusion.
A better analogy would be a Reddit post warning that although a car is advertised at $30,000, the true cost is closer to $60,000 after hidden fees are included. That post would still add value, even if it doesn’t review the car in full, because it would provide readers valuable information they might not be familiar with. Likewise, my article aimed to contribute by highlighting costs of an LVT that might otherwise go unnoticed.
I wouldn’t say your article was misleading, just oddly framed, for me. To me it is obvious that taxes introduce distortions (with rare exceptions like carbon taxes that are addressing negative externalities). So “an LVT (can) discourage searching for new uses of land” is a true fact but not yet an “argument against”—to become an argument it needs to be supplemented with ”… and this distortion is more damaging than existing taxes for the same revenue”.
That said, in the last six months the tariff discussions have been eye-opening. The quality of debate has been very low, and basic facts like “tariffs are taxes”, “tariffs raise revenue”, “tariffs increase prices”, and “tariffs reduce trade” apparently need to be explained at length. This aligns with your description of parts of pro-LVT Twitter, so I understand better where you are coming from than when I wrote my comment above.
I agree it’s strange to see a lot of writing effort put into something with such basic argumentation mistakes… it really seems disturbingly similar to lightly edited LLM output.
Though to be fair many posts on LW nowadays seem to make really weird assumptions and/or jumping intermediate steps.
It would be helpful if you could clearly specify the “basic argumentation mistakes” you see in the original article. The parent comment mentioned two main points: (1) the claim that I’m being misleading by listing costs of an LVT without comparing them to benefits, and (2) the claim that an LVT would likely replace existing taxes rather than add to them.
If I’m wrong on point (2), that would likely stem from complex empirical issues, not from a basic argumentation mistake. So I’ll focus on point (1) here.
Regarding (1), my article explicitly stated that its purpose was not to offer a balanced evaluation, but to highlight potential costs of an LVT that I believe are often overlooked or poorly understood. This is unlike the analogy given, where someone reviews a car only by noting its price while ignoring its features. The disanalogy is that, in the case of a car review, the price is already transparent and easily verifiable. However, with an LVT, the costs are often unclear, downplayed, or poorly communicated in public discourse, at least in my experience on twitter.
By pointing out these underdiscussed costs, I’m aiming to provide readers with information they may not have encountered, helping them make a more informed overall judgment. Moreover, I explicitly and prominently linked to a positive case for an LVT and encouraged readers to compare both perspectives to reach a final conclusion.
A better analogy would be a Reddit post warning that although a car is advertised at $30,000, the true cost is closer to $60,000 after hidden fees are included. That post would still add value, even if it doesn’t review the car in full, because it would provide readers valuable information they might not be familiar with. Likewise, my article aimed to contribute by highlighting costs of an LVT that might otherwise go unnoticed.
I wouldn’t say your article was misleading, just oddly framed, for me. To me it is obvious that taxes introduce distortions (with rare exceptions like carbon taxes that are addressing negative externalities). So “an LVT (can) discourage searching for new uses of land” is a true fact but not yet an “argument against”—to become an argument it needs to be supplemented with ”… and this distortion is more damaging than existing taxes for the same revenue”.
That said, in the last six months the tariff discussions have been eye-opening. The quality of debate has been very low, and basic facts like “tariffs are taxes”, “tariffs raise revenue”, “tariffs increase prices”, and “tariffs reduce trade” apparently need to be explained at length. This aligns with your description of parts of pro-LVT Twitter, so I understand better where you are coming from than when I wrote my comment above.