1. You are here for the columns and the reporting, not just podcast news.
2. If I share podcasts, I need to make sure there is a way to *read* them, too.
Not a worry: lots of stories coming your way. Going forward, I might start another section of this newsletter just for podcasts to make sure those that don't want to miss out never do. TBD, but thank you in advance for your patience.
As for number two: ask and ye shall receive!
Here is the conversation with Cuban for those who prefer to read rather than pod:
Bari, I am really not interested in podcasts because they take too much time. I subscribe to your newsletter. If you must do podcasts, can you please transcribe them so that the rest of us can consume the content? Thank you.
I can't take anything Mark Cuban says seriously regarding what he thinks about are problems in this country when he gladly accepts literal blood money from China for his continued silence on their genocide of Uyghur Muslims, their other vast number human rights atrocities including what they've done in Tibet, their slave labor force to make Nike shoes and Apple iPhones and cheap junk for Wal-Mart and Amazon, and their breaking of treaty to take away Hong Kong's freedoms.
Mark Cuban is a garbage human being. I don't care how affable he seems on Shark Tank or how much money he has.
A mixed reaction to your interview with Mr Cuban. He displayed the vision and drive that has taken him to where he is today and I am sure will enable him to continue to succeed over the next decades. But his value system and understanding of root causes of our society’s ills seemed shallow. I was particularly dismayed by his rote verbalization of “domestic policy” as an excuse for how businesses deal with the horrors perpetuated by the Chinese and his simplistic solution of better pre-school, less hunger and better medical care for what to do about our abysmal state of education and drive in youth. I am not saying that there is not some reasoning behind either of these but they are the easy answer and not the root cause. He did not explain how he could separate the moral choice in cooperating with the Nazis’ versus cooperating with the Chinese. And he did not address except in a very vague way that the destruction of the family unit being a key root cause of where we are on education. All you have to do is compare poor Asian immigrant students in how they do scholastically to either poor Appalachian white of Black students to know that something besides being poor is making the difference. In the case of China I suspect it relates to his fear or hopes of his capitalistic ventures and in the case of education I suspect he knows but is unwilling or unable to address it.
Joseph Goebbles would applaud the propaganda published by ProPublica. It’s timed perfectly to coincide with the tax legislative changes that are being proposed in the fall of 2021. As that proposed legislation stands today, it doesn’t go as far as ProPublica would like. And that’s good news.
Analyzing the true tax rate: taxes paid divided by assets held, is silly and meaningless. It only serves to inflame the discussion and to cause people more emotional angst about their envy of others’ successes. The effective tax rate, taxes paid divided by taxable income, is the more appropriate analysis. For Buffett - 19% (likely his dividend income from personal stocks held other than BRK); for Bezos - 23% (likely some options exercised); for Bloomberg - 3% (as noted, credits and charitable giving); for Musk - 29% (likely some option exercises). But the analysis requires an assessment of each year by each individual - and ProPublica doesn’t disclose this information because it would negatively affect their chosen narrative.
In the discussion about Buffett, they acknowledge that he will give most of his fortune away - to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. An organization that he has more confidence in being a good fiduciary with his fortune, than the government. Imagine that. The man who mastered the allocation of capital has more confidence in a private foundation doing more good with his fortune than the government. That seems perfectly prudent and reasonable. But ProPublica doesn’t want to give a counter point of view, only what fits its narrative.
It’s really sad when when journalists attempt to explain taxes to an uniformed public. Take the NYT article a few years ago when they disclosed Trumps tax history with a long winded analysis that was filled with innuendo and supposition. I’m not taking Trump’s side, I’m just bashing a hatchet job that somehow got a Pulitzer Prize. That NYT article would have never been given any serious consideration in the context of a formal tax due diligence exercise by competent tax professionals.
Why is it that whenever taxes are discussed in a public space the subject of expenses are never addressed in a meaningful way? Reagan was accurate when he said “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have an expense problem.”
Confiscating ALL of what the 25 richest people in the article have ($1.1 trillion) amounts to a spit in the ocean when compared to the federal debt ($28 trillion), the unfunded social security obligation ($21 trillion) and the unfunded Medicare obligation ($33 trillion). But yet ProPublica wants to tax assets held because somehow, the government will be a better steward than the entrepreneurs who created that wealth. Note the amounts in this paragraph were taken from today’s usdebtclock.org.
Bari, this is off topic, but I wanted to tell you how spectacular your conversation was with Jordan Peterson. Peterson is a brilliant, mesmerizing thinker who sometimes goes off on tangents that derail the discourse despite his good intentions. You didn’t let him do it! When he tried to talk over you or take the conversation in a weird direction, you just kept going or politely shut down his irrelevant tangent by refusing to engage with it. (I’m thinking of his attempt to turn you into a father figure because of some supposedly masculine trait you exhibited, or his speculating on your personality traits according to a psychological paradigm he uses.)
Frankly, Peterson met his match with you, and I learned a lot in the process. I should state for the record that despite what I describe above, Peterson is a great interviewer. One can go to all sorts of deep and candid places with him, and you made the most of the opportunity. Thanks to both of you.
I do not think that Mark Cuban is right in regard to the intellectual capital and entrepreneurial mindset being the greatest assets that the U.S. has. At one time in the past, this was overwhelmingly the case. However, as Nobel Laureate in Economics Edmund Phelps has written in his two most recent books, "Mass Flourishing and "Dynamism" the values that built the U.S. began a decline in the late 1960's. Those values would definitely include the entrepreneurial mindset and all that that encompasses.
As importantly, or more accurately, more risky, is the current and projected future state of the Chinese entrepreneurs. In his book that compares AI and other technological capabilities of China to the U.S. Kai Fu Lee (former Google, Apple and Microsoft executive) writes, "But I've spent decades deeply embedded in both Silicon Valley and China's tech scene, working at Apple, Microsoft and Google before incubating and investing in dozens of Chinese startups. I can tell you that Silicon Valley looks downright sluggish compared to its competitor across the Pacific. Over the coming decade, China's gladiator entrepreneurs will fan out across hundreds of industries, applying deep learning to any problem that shows the potential for profit. Corporate America is unprepared for this global wave of Chinese entrepreneurship.
The "Chinese Dream" is not only alive but flourishing at the entrepreneurial level. While America worries over stakeholder governance models, diversity, inclusion, etc. the Chinese entrepreneurs are laser focused on their businesses (products and services). While Millennials and Gen Z'rs bemoan capitalism, the Chinese of the same age celebrate it. We are in for a rough road unless something dramatic can be done to shift the values noted by Edmund Phelps back to those that provided the drive to build this country.
I am one of your readers who also loves podcasts. I listen when I walk, drive or do chores. I appreciate both, thanks for all you are doing in getting good work and ideas out there.
It's very simple - income tax is on income. If you don't have taxable income, then no taxes. The very wealthy don't draw paychecks so they're not taxed. On the other hand, corporations they own do pay taxes on income.
Well, I'm definitely not against transcribing, but I do like the podcasts so I can put down my phone and just listen. I think there's something in being able to hear the inflection of the person's voice that you don't get by reading.
Again, not against transcribing, I do like the podcasts, so please don't stop with those
I don't listen to podcasts for the same reason I watch very few (if any) videos. They are a waste of time in my opinion. I can read and absorb information must faster than the time it takes to listen to podcasts or watch videos. If this site is going to become predominantly podcasts, I'll have to reconsider subscribing.
Mark Cuban may be fun, provocative, intelligent but he did a terrible job discussing capitalism and taxes. Maybe he wasn't ready for the question. It's not just that assets fluctuate in value. Many assets are illiquid and difficult to value to begin with and this has to be done every year for every asset. How much is that Monet worth? How about the land in Hawaii? Then you have to sell a liquid asset to pay the taxes. This drives the price of liquid assets (stocks, bonds) down every year. And it doesn't stop. Rich people then can't buy more stock because they will just have to sell it at the end of the year. It becomes a downward spiral for everyone and impossible to own a large family owned business.
Also, capitalism doesn't need a modifier like gentle or wholesome or caring. It's good all by itself.
Hi all! I heard you loud and clear on two things:
1. You are here for the columns and the reporting, not just podcast news.
2. If I share podcasts, I need to make sure there is a way to *read* them, too.
Not a worry: lots of stories coming your way. Going forward, I might start another section of this newsletter just for podcasts to make sure those that don't want to miss out never do. TBD, but thank you in advance for your patience.
As for number two: ask and ye shall receive!
Here is the conversation with Cuban for those who prefer to read rather than pod:
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-conversation-with-mark-cuban
Bari, I am really not interested in podcasts because they take too much time. I subscribe to your newsletter. If you must do podcasts, can you please transcribe them so that the rest of us can consume the content? Thank you.
I can't take anything Mark Cuban says seriously regarding what he thinks about are problems in this country when he gladly accepts literal blood money from China for his continued silence on their genocide of Uyghur Muslims, their other vast number human rights atrocities including what they've done in Tibet, their slave labor force to make Nike shoes and Apple iPhones and cheap junk for Wal-Mart and Amazon, and their breaking of treaty to take away Hong Kong's freedoms.
Mark Cuban is a garbage human being. I don't care how affable he seems on Shark Tank or how much money he has.
A mixed reaction to your interview with Mr Cuban. He displayed the vision and drive that has taken him to where he is today and I am sure will enable him to continue to succeed over the next decades. But his value system and understanding of root causes of our society’s ills seemed shallow. I was particularly dismayed by his rote verbalization of “domestic policy” as an excuse for how businesses deal with the horrors perpetuated by the Chinese and his simplistic solution of better pre-school, less hunger and better medical care for what to do about our abysmal state of education and drive in youth. I am not saying that there is not some reasoning behind either of these but they are the easy answer and not the root cause. He did not explain how he could separate the moral choice in cooperating with the Nazis’ versus cooperating with the Chinese. And he did not address except in a very vague way that the destruction of the family unit being a key root cause of where we are on education. All you have to do is compare poor Asian immigrant students in how they do scholastically to either poor Appalachian white of Black students to know that something besides being poor is making the difference. In the case of China I suspect it relates to his fear or hopes of his capitalistic ventures and in the case of education I suspect he knows but is unwilling or unable to address it.
Joseph Goebbles would applaud the propaganda published by ProPublica. It’s timed perfectly to coincide with the tax legislative changes that are being proposed in the fall of 2021. As that proposed legislation stands today, it doesn’t go as far as ProPublica would like. And that’s good news.
Analyzing the true tax rate: taxes paid divided by assets held, is silly and meaningless. It only serves to inflame the discussion and to cause people more emotional angst about their envy of others’ successes. The effective tax rate, taxes paid divided by taxable income, is the more appropriate analysis. For Buffett - 19% (likely his dividend income from personal stocks held other than BRK); for Bezos - 23% (likely some options exercised); for Bloomberg - 3% (as noted, credits and charitable giving); for Musk - 29% (likely some option exercises). But the analysis requires an assessment of each year by each individual - and ProPublica doesn’t disclose this information because it would negatively affect their chosen narrative.
In the discussion about Buffett, they acknowledge that he will give most of his fortune away - to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. An organization that he has more confidence in being a good fiduciary with his fortune, than the government. Imagine that. The man who mastered the allocation of capital has more confidence in a private foundation doing more good with his fortune than the government. That seems perfectly prudent and reasonable. But ProPublica doesn’t want to give a counter point of view, only what fits its narrative.
It’s really sad when when journalists attempt to explain taxes to an uniformed public. Take the NYT article a few years ago when they disclosed Trumps tax history with a long winded analysis that was filled with innuendo and supposition. I’m not taking Trump’s side, I’m just bashing a hatchet job that somehow got a Pulitzer Prize. That NYT article would have never been given any serious consideration in the context of a formal tax due diligence exercise by competent tax professionals.
Why is it that whenever taxes are discussed in a public space the subject of expenses are never addressed in a meaningful way? Reagan was accurate when he said “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have an expense problem.”
Confiscating ALL of what the 25 richest people in the article have ($1.1 trillion) amounts to a spit in the ocean when compared to the federal debt ($28 trillion), the unfunded social security obligation ($21 trillion) and the unfunded Medicare obligation ($33 trillion). But yet ProPublica wants to tax assets held because somehow, the government will be a better steward than the entrepreneurs who created that wealth. Note the amounts in this paragraph were taken from today’s usdebtclock.org.
Bari, this is off topic, but I wanted to tell you how spectacular your conversation was with Jordan Peterson. Peterson is a brilliant, mesmerizing thinker who sometimes goes off on tangents that derail the discourse despite his good intentions. You didn’t let him do it! When he tried to talk over you or take the conversation in a weird direction, you just kept going or politely shut down his irrelevant tangent by refusing to engage with it. (I’m thinking of his attempt to turn you into a father figure because of some supposedly masculine trait you exhibited, or his speculating on your personality traits according to a psychological paradigm he uses.)
Frankly, Peterson met his match with you, and I learned a lot in the process. I should state for the record that despite what I describe above, Peterson is a great interviewer. One can go to all sorts of deep and candid places with him, and you made the most of the opportunity. Thanks to both of you.
Bari - I can read faster than you can talk. Please go back to writing.
I do not think that Mark Cuban is right in regard to the intellectual capital and entrepreneurial mindset being the greatest assets that the U.S. has. At one time in the past, this was overwhelmingly the case. However, as Nobel Laureate in Economics Edmund Phelps has written in his two most recent books, "Mass Flourishing and "Dynamism" the values that built the U.S. began a decline in the late 1960's. Those values would definitely include the entrepreneurial mindset and all that that encompasses.
As importantly, or more accurately, more risky, is the current and projected future state of the Chinese entrepreneurs. In his book that compares AI and other technological capabilities of China to the U.S. Kai Fu Lee (former Google, Apple and Microsoft executive) writes, "But I've spent decades deeply embedded in both Silicon Valley and China's tech scene, working at Apple, Microsoft and Google before incubating and investing in dozens of Chinese startups. I can tell you that Silicon Valley looks downright sluggish compared to its competitor across the Pacific. Over the coming decade, China's gladiator entrepreneurs will fan out across hundreds of industries, applying deep learning to any problem that shows the potential for profit. Corporate America is unprepared for this global wave of Chinese entrepreneurship.
The "Chinese Dream" is not only alive but flourishing at the entrepreneurial level. While America worries over stakeholder governance models, diversity, inclusion, etc. the Chinese entrepreneurs are laser focused on their businesses (products and services). While Millennials and Gen Z'rs bemoan capitalism, the Chinese of the same age celebrate it. We are in for a rough road unless something dramatic can be done to shift the values noted by Edmund Phelps back to those that provided the drive to build this country.
I am one of your readers who also loves podcasts. I listen when I walk, drive or do chores. I appreciate both, thanks for all you are doing in getting good work and ideas out there.
It's very simple - income tax is on income. If you don't have taxable income, then no taxes. The very wealthy don't draw paychecks so they're not taxed. On the other hand, corporations they own do pay taxes on income.
I’m on the side of the “read it” rather than “hear it” crowd. Thank you for your effort to provide both formats.
Bari, are you planning to make your podcasts available on Android platforms?
Lol jeez, lot of podcast haters.
Well, I'm definitely not against transcribing, but I do like the podcasts so I can put down my phone and just listen. I think there's something in being able to hear the inflection of the person's voice that you don't get by reading.
Again, not against transcribing, I do like the podcasts, so please don't stop with those
I don't listen to podcasts for the same reason I watch very few (if any) videos. They are a waste of time in my opinion. I can read and absorb information must faster than the time it takes to listen to podcasts or watch videos. If this site is going to become predominantly podcasts, I'll have to reconsider subscribing.
Mark Cuban may be fun, provocative, intelligent but he did a terrible job discussing capitalism and taxes. Maybe he wasn't ready for the question. It's not just that assets fluctuate in value. Many assets are illiquid and difficult to value to begin with and this has to be done every year for every asset. How much is that Monet worth? How about the land in Hawaii? Then you have to sell a liquid asset to pay the taxes. This drives the price of liquid assets (stocks, bonds) down every year. And it doesn't stop. Rich people then can't buy more stock because they will just have to sell it at the end of the year. It becomes a downward spiral for everyone and impossible to own a large family owned business.
Also, capitalism doesn't need a modifier like gentle or wholesome or caring. It's good all by itself.
Beyond grateful for your authencity and your willingness stand up, speak out, and search for truth regardless of politics.