undefined | Better HN

0 pointsKiro2y ago0 comments

That doesn't change my point. Those bankers are probably equally unaware of the actual long-term effects this will have. What I mean is that there are no easy fixes for anything and I'm always skeptical of any action driven by populism. The politicians know that people only care about the first stage of effects.

With that said, I'm no different and I wish the same happened in my country. I am however aware that my feelings are short-sighted.

0 comments

mcphage2y ago

> Those bankers are probably equally unaware of the actual long-term effects this will have.

However, we're aware of the long-term effects not taxing banks enough brings about, so trying something different seems like a good idea, even if we don't know all of the effects until later.

Lolaccount2y ago

You say that. And your I read your original post again, to be sure.

There have been significant windfall taxes before and (in my country (UK), at least) I can't recall any disastrous long term indirect effects.

boomskats2y ago

> The politicians know that people only care about the first stage of effects.

I think this is a slightly reductionist view, but the effect is the same and unpacking it here won't change anything.

In the least snarky way possible, can anyone think of an example where capitalism promotes or encourages long-term thinking?

lockhouse2y ago

I have a great example of it!

In 1759, Arthur Guinness signed a 9,000 year lease for his brewery.

https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-sign...

eesmith2y ago

OTOH, https://acdc-beverage.com/guinness-a-brand-that-doesnt-pay-r... :

> Guinness actually doesn’t pay any rent for its iconic St. James’s Gate Brewery in Dublin. That’s because the site has been owned by the Guinness family since 1876, and the current lease runs until 2031.

From 1759 to 1876 is 117 years.

FWIW, as far as I can tell, a 9,000 year lease would have conflicted with the rule against perpetuities. Certainly Cadell v Palmer (1833) set the limit as "lives in being plus twenty-one years[1]" and I gather from https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rRuleAgainstPer... that something similar have applied in Ireland at the time of Guinness, certainly by 1833.

As an interesting observation, Arthur Guinness II lived 1768-1855 and 21 years later is 1876. I'm now curious about the actual text of the lease, but I can't easily find a copy online.

[1] For the life of a person currently alive or in gestation, and for 21 years after their death. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause with a recent notable use in the US at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Florida_Tourism_Oversi... .

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse