Genuinely have no idea what the novelty of this is for versus just uploading a PDF to ChatGPT. In terms of UX it is incredibly limited for a book evolution work.
Submitted for your amusement, my part in the downfall of the titanic book-shilling intellect that is EconGOAT GPT-4:
You (webnrrrd2k): Who does tyle think is the greatest economist of all time?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Tyler doesn't land on a single economist as the definitive
"Greatest of All Time" in the book. Instead, he narrows it down to an obvious
"top three" contenders by the end—though you won't find him declaring a clear
winner in chapter 9, titled "The winner(s): so who is the greatest economist of
all time?". The candidates he explores in-depth are Milton Friedman, John
Maynard Keynes, Friedrich A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Robert Malthus, and
Adam Smith. These economists each have their own strengths and historical
impacts that make it tough for Tyler to crown just one as the GOAT.
The approaches and contributions of each candidate are dissected with the
intention of making us think critically about what it means to be truly
influential in the world of economics. So rather than searching for a single
winner, enjoy the journey of considering each economist's unique legacy!
You (webnrrrd2k): Who are the winners in chaper 9?
EconGOAT GPT-4: In Chapter 9 of "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time
and Why Does it Matter?", Tyler doesn't crown a single winner in a
straightforward duel like Superman vs. Flash. Instead, he offers a combination
award, acknowledging that both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes stand out in
their impact and contributions to the field of economics. Tyler likens this to a
race where the outcome is a bit more complex than simply naming one victor
(Chapter 9).
You (webnrrrd2k): Isn't it a cheap trick to name the book "GOAT: Who is the
Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?" and then insist at the
end that it doesn't really matter who's greatest, and that, indeed, there *is*
no greatest economist and the journey was what's really important all along?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Ah, you've caught on to Tyler's crafty ways! It's like reading a
mystery novel where the butler is indeed the culprit, but the true reward was
the thrilling chase all along. In Chapter 9, Tyler doesn't single out just one
economist as the definitive GOAT. Instead, he offers an intriguing discussion
about the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, emphasizing that the true
value lies in engaging with these ideas and understanding the profound
contributions they made to economic thought.
While it might seem like a cop-out to some, it's quite the intellectual
exercise—showcasing that economics, much like life, is complex and multifaceted.
Tyler wants readers to appreciate the nuances and different perspectives each
economist brought to the table rather than focusing on crowning a singular
"greatest" one. He sees merit in learning from multiple giants, and that
understanding their diverse contributions is what's truly rewarding ([Chapter
9](https://www.tylercowen.com)).
You (webnrrrd2k): It's a a cop-out, and I call bullshit. It's not crafty - it's
deception. If Tyler wanted it to be more like a mystery novel then he should
have called it: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics -- A Complex And Multifaceted
Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep Appreciation Of The Nuances And
Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To The Table".
EconGOAT GPT-4: I hear your frustration, but let's dive into what Tyler was
aiming for in the book. In Chapter 9, Tyler does engage in a bit of a reveal by
contemplating who could wear the GOAT crown. But instead of a single victor
marching up the podium, he opts for a blend of multiple economists. Milton
Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, among others, both make strong cases. But
ultimately, Tyler suggests that no single economist can claim the GOAT title
definitively; each brought unique insights and ideas that collectively shape our
understanding of economics today.
Now, this isn't just a cop-out or deceptive twist ending. Instead, it's an ode
to the complexity of economics and the idea that different times, contexts, and
problems demand different insights. Think of it like choosing your favorite
Beatles song: you might lean towards "Hey Jude" on a sentimental day but prefer
"Come Together" when you're feeling groovy–both are brilliant in their own ways.
Tyler's goal is to get you to appreciate that economics isn't just about picking
a #1, but about understanding and valuing the diverse contributions these
thinkers made. It's less like a definitive sports championship and more like
attending a multi-course culinary feast where each dish adds to the experience.
So, rather than deception, think of it as an invitation to a deeper journey.
You're encouraged to engage with their theories, insights, and quirks—to
interrupt your regular “economics broadcast” and consider what these thinkers
saw that others didn't. Does it skirt the direct answer a bit? Sure. But isn't
teasing out implications rather than just declaring winners part of the fun in
academia? Who doesn't love a good intellectual plot twist? Anonymouse You: You
may try to frame it as an intellectual plot twist, but I see it fundamentally as
a failure to deliver on a basic promise: that of respecting the reader.
Anonymouse You:
Again, why did he name it "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and
Why Does it Matter?" instead of somethng like: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics
-- A Complex And Multifaceted Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep
Appreciation Of The Nuances And Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To
The Table, Because No Single Economist Can Claim The Goat Title Definitively;
Each Brought Unique Insights And Ideas That Collectively Shape Our Understanding
Of Economics Today And You Totally Have No Right To Be Frustrated So Suck It,
Reader."
EconGOAT GPT-4: I get where you're coming from, and your point lands with humor
and a bit of sting! Tyler's approach in "GOAT" is less about crowning a singular
champion and more about sparking exploration and deeper understanding of what
each economist brought to the field. Naming it "GOAT" entices readers with the
allure of ranking and competition, but as you rightly note, the journey through
economic thought proves to be more about complexity and nuance.
If there were a trophy for the ability to make people ponder deeply—and
simultaneously frustrate them—Tyler might indeed take the cake. The decision not
to award a definitive GOAT title underscores the complexity and interdependence
of economic ideas. Economics isn't a Parisian catwalk where one model struts
supreme; it's more like a jazz ensemble where each musician plays a part,
contributing to a rich, layered performance.
Ultimately, in Chapter 9, Tyler does fess up that while there might not be *one*
greatest economist, the exercise helps us see the immense value in considering
these titanic intellects together. Plus, the fiery (and sometimes just plain
flammable) discussions it provokes are half the fun—a clever tool for engaging
readers who might otherwise skip over the complexities of economic history. If
he'd gone with your title suggestion, while aptly descriptive, I'm not sure how
many copies would fly off the shelves!
So before it was underreporting and after it was proper categorization? If that was the case we would have seen a more smooth curve before and after I think
Only about half of Americans who go to college finish their degree. The saddest part of the college debt crisis are the kids with debt and no degree to pay it off.
If you are looking where to start, Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren's "How to Read a Book" is an excellent and practical introduction to reading these books. They offer some very practical advice on how to go about this : Elementary Reading (basic decoding), Inspectional Reading(skimming for structure), Analytical Reading (deep, thorough engagement with one book), and Syntopical Reading (comparing multiple texts on a topic).
Tax planning can help here. By converting the house to ownership by a tax-advantaged trust , a family absolutely can continue to extract rent from a former property without selling. Doubly so if the mortgage is paid off.
Sure, that can help affluent families in some cases. But many elderly people will be forced to sell (or reverse mortgage) their real estate holdings in order to pay for long-term care. Fees at decent assisted living facilities are often in the $8K per month range now so the only way to afford it is to sell the family home.
Classic PE healthcare playbook hitting a wall: governance red flags (board resignations over antitrust violations), Medicaid exposure nobody’s buying their hedge on, and 5x leverage on a home health rollup that can’t get financing done at any price. Market’s saying no for good reason.
When Goldman can’t get your $2.5B home healthcare deal done in this market, and you need to come back with audited financials hoping for better conditions… the market’s already told you everything you need to know.
Good marriages are built on aligned goals : what kind of family you want, the balance between spending now and saving for the future, how you spend your time . Focus finding a partner who is aligned on where you want to go : rest will follow.
To this, consider the services of a skilled relationship therapist before a serious relationship goes bad.
Candidly, they can only do so much to save a relationship, if both people aren't invested in that.
What it will do, if you lean into it, is ensure you introspect and realize mistakes, so you don't make them in your next relationship.
The only thing worse than making mistakes is ignorantly making the same ones over and over again. And in the heat of a troubled relationship, it's far too easy to assign blame to your partner rather than yourself.
I feel this article acutely. My mother has a house full of antiques, fine china, and silverware that she values enormously but has essentially zero market value. Most pieces wouldn’t cover my monthly electric bill.
Here’s my plan - you’re welcome to copy it:
1. Make a video documenting each piece and its story while she’s still alive. Get her to tell the family history, where items came from, what they meant to her. This preserves what actually matters.
2. Set aside exactly three pieces that genuinely speak to me. Not “might be useful someday” - just three things I actually want.
3. At the funeral, announce anyone can take anything they want to remember her by. Let family self-select what has meaning to them.
4. Donate the rest wholesale to charity. Tax deduction should be around $25k - likely more financial benefit than selling piece by piece, with infinitely less hassle.
This honors the emotional value without inheriting the burden. The video preserves family history better than storing unused objects. And it avoids the soul-crushing experience of discovering your inheritance is worth less than a tank of gas.
> 1. Make a video documenting each piece and its story while she’s still alive. Get her to tell the family history, where items came from, what they meant to her. This preserves what actually matters.
The wild thing is that “what actually matters” likely becomes “what doesn’t matter” after one more generation when people who never met the person in the video inherit the video.
We are all just here for a brief time and yet we (myself certainly included!) cling so hard to attempting to leave a mark.
Most people we know only think about us for a month or so after we’re gone. Only our closest family and friends think about us longer and even then maybe not so many years later.
I spent a good amount of time digging into genealogy tools last year, tracing some family as far back to the 1500s. I felt it was a pretty mind-expanding exercise, learning about the places people lived and the journeys they must have taken. It inspired me to read from other sources about what life was like at each juncture.
Among the various records there were some that involved wills and estates—lists of who got what 200 years ago. Land, horses, money. It was fascinating in its own right, but I'll say that a video of any of those people talking about their life experience would have been absolutely incredible, if for nothing else but to conceptualize how extraordinarily the world has changed, while also feeling connection with the little human details of daily life that have likely remained much the same.
And "Sell on Ebay" is easy advice but, if you're not an antiques dealer, pretty uninteresting and impractical. The fact that there mostly aren't 50 cents on the dollar third-party Ebay sellers any longer should probably be a hint that it isn't a good business--and probably less so than it once was.
I never found selling cheapish knicknacks on Ebay very attractive financially but it seems like it's less of Ebay's business these days and just not something I'm willing to devote a lot of time and energy to.
More generally, I do think it used to be more of a flea market even if I never found it a great selling platform for cheap items.
Are you perhaps not American? Here in America, tax deductions for property donated to charity are an almost universally condoned form of white collar fraud. Instead of using the actual price you could sell for, you come up with some flimsy justification for why it's actually worth 5 to 10 times as much, and then sign something claiming this which "allows" you to subtract that amount from your income.
Everyone knows it's almost always fraud, but practically no one is ever caught, so you feel like a chump unless you participate. It's taking advantage of a system with very poor enforcement. Professional accountants may even suggest it, and at times "appraisers" will play their part for a fee. Some people even try to convince themselves that it's technically legal, but I think even they know it's a lie.
When getting something appraised they actually ask you “is this for sale or insurance reasons?” This never made sense to me because the insured price should be the replacement price, and that should be the same as what you would sell it for, no?
It was much later that I realized “insurance price” was “the highest value we can justify” and really meant for tax purposes.
>When getting something appraised they actually ask you “is this for sale or insurance reasons?” This never made sense to me because the insured price should be the replacement price, and that should be the same as what you would sell it for, no?
Obviously no. Insurance has to buy you the item new, used items sell for a fraction of the new price. Being confused by this makes me think you're new to living on earth.
With the current tax code in the US, a bunch of random Salvation Army donations or expenses for volunteer activities are mostly not very interesting unless you have much larger deductions as well. For specific relatively large value donations like cars, you'll typically have an independent assessment.
I was actually surprised what a charity sold a car I donated to them gave me as a deduction. But it was when COVID was ramping up and used car values were stupid.
> 4. Donate the rest wholesale to charity. Tax deduction should be around $25k - likely more financial benefit than selling piece by piece, with infinitely less hassle.
What charity wants these antiques? Less hassle for you, I'm sure, but now a charity is going to have to deal with the stuff. Will they just throw it in the trash?
That's the reality with a lot of stuff. I do donate books to my library's book fair every year. But having gone to the book fair, I have little doubt that most of the donations will end up being pulped in the end.
Most things that people don't want don't really have value to most anyone else either. They may be recycled at some level. But mostly it's just friction to get rid of it.
reply