hntrader

Correct.

I was asking what the basis is for your confidence that it positively isn't substantially genetic.

We know that intelligence is highly heritable, which leaves a few possible explanations, genetics being one of them (along with prenatal nutrition, prenatal lead exposure, etc).

If you're going to claim that genetics is only a small part of the reason that it's heritable, then that has its own burden of proof that needs to be met.

  "These standardized tests don’t add much."

Do you have any evidence for this aside from your immediate experience?

But that's marked to market value.

The shareholder still has to receive a dividend or sell that higher priced stock, which are both taxable events.

So I still don't get it.

I don't understand this.

If I'm a greedy shareholder, then I want dividends and cap gains, which are both taxable outside of company tax.

How does hoarding cash inside a company, which is out of my personal reach, help me to satisfy my greed? I can't buy a yacht with it until I get the money out.

He worked as a research assistant for a professor for three years and is now engaged in amateur research which he shares on his blog, some of which has received positive feedback from some highly credible people.

Also, "researcher" doesn't imply "professional", since amateur researchers exist.

The self-appointed title of "Researcher" is appropriate, in my opinion. There are people in industry who receive that designation ("Real Estate Researcher") that are less deserving.

  "Academics criticise each other's work constantly but this is acceptable because the purpose is to improve one another's work, not to tarnish each other's reputation and drag their name through the mud."

But this is not an example of regular academic work that's being criticized.

This is a book that contains health advice being consumed and actioned upon right now by thousands or millions of laypeople. Guzey is therefore trying to warn regular people who might believe and follow bunk advice and suffer health consequences. He makes this intention clear.

James Randi's service to the public as a skeptic was proportional to the amount of noise he made when he would come across and debunk frauds like Uri Geller. (I'm not saying Walker is a fraud, but the public danger of bunk health wisdom is similar to that posed by conmen like Geller.)

I do still agree with you, however, that it would've been better to discuss the allegations with Walker in private before publishing them. Having read Walker's response now, though, I don't believe it would've made much of a difference. He's still misrepresenting official adequate sleep guidelines, willfully or otherwise, by saying that anyone who gets under 8 hours has "unmet sleep needs", contradicting the NSF.

  "kick up an internet storm with accusations of "deliberate data manipulation""

You're right - the accusation of "deliberate" is definitely a big mistake, and he should remove that since it assumes intent when that hasn't been established.

On the whole, though, aside from sparse mistakes like this (along with the mistake that you noticed of not making it clear that the Berkeley communication was unverified), I feel that the article is rather constrained.

Gelman also noticed this measured tone and explicitly complimented the author on it.

On the other hand, corporate taxes advantage large multi-national corporations over smaller companies because they have the resources and capability to manoeuvre around the rules and pay a lower relative tax rate.

A government should be able to achieve control through Pigovian taxation, regulations and fines. I'm not convinced that a blanket corporate tax (which does indeed facilitate targeted tax breaks) is necessary beyond the other tools that already exist.

What would be the incentive for this?

The whole point is for stakeholders to eventually get paid in a taxable event; either shareholders through a capital gains taxable event or employees through an income taxable event.

Some tech companies are hoarding cash but I don't believe this is due to incentives created by taxation, although I could be mistaken.

The tone of these particular tweets should be parsed in context.

If you think that someone has been operating in bad faith towards you for years, eventually you lose interest in engaging and choose the "block" option, which is what Roser did today.

Also, Hickel himself has engaged in uncivil rhetoric previously, e.g an unprovoked accusation of "mansplaining" in 2019.

Hickel did a similar thing to Steven Pinker.

He wrote a scathing article falsely claiming that the poverty rate was increasing (contra to Pinker's claim), when according to his own data in that same article - it was actually steadily decreasing.

I've come to see him as a bad faith actor.