That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.
> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
>So he took a misleading statistic, interpreted it incorrectly and then built some kind of nostalgic story around it to support what was essentially an excuse to support far-right thugs protesting.
His exact words from the blog:
"In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third."
White Brits are the only native/indigenous Brits to London. It's not misleading, it's just a fact. He did not interpret this fact incorrectly.
That's disingenuous because it's a neologism based on the population that were in America at the time of its colonisation. Native literally has the etymology of place of birth in the word.
You're mixing nationality, a piece of paper, with being "native", an ethnic group. Does not work in countries across Europe, Japan, Korea, etc. The settling of the USA and its cultural dominance has broken peoples brains. Europe is inhabited by its indigenous people!
The English are an ethnic group (ask 23andMe) and they are the founding stock of Great Britain. Source - the far right extremist wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
I don’t actually believe this statistic, as an aside, but if we stipulate that it is true, it still doesn’t remotely mean 97.7% “ethnic English”. That’s a radically wrong implication.
It’s a little closer to DHH’s point about the percentage of British people (the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are not simply “ethnic English”).
But it’s still very wrong. At that point it was a ninteeen-hundred-year old working international port city, it has had a large population of Jews of European descent for centuries (the first large community being so notable that they were discriminated against in Magna Carta, after all), various displaced populations after WWI and WWII, a very large Irish population, thousands of Italians, many Dutch.
In the 1800s French Huguenot refugees and their immediate descendants made up perhaps ten per cent of the population of London (figures vary, considerably, could be 3% or nearer 15% depending on the boundary definition you choose and that at the time of their arrival the UK had no formal immigration policy so no exact numbers — but over 200,000 settled in mainland Britain). A truly astonishing number arrived and the city simply made room. But they didn’t leave; they assimilated. Same thing happened with Dutch exile craftsmen.
So he is wrong (and IMO ought to have known some of this) and you are not at all on the right track either.
People just have no grasp of the nearly unique reality of London as a historical melting pot. By 1960 its diversity was eclipsed by American cities like New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, but this idea that London was somehow traditionally “ethnically British” to the point of being a quaint monoculture is fully crackers. Just not true. The difference since 1960 is just more visible because we started adding more literal colour from the Commonwealth.
A place worth visiting for Brits who don't believe this and tourists who are interested:
The literal definition and etymology of 'native' relates to birth, check a dictionary and the definition will read the same. The truth is that 60% of London's population is made up of native Brits and that hasn't changed at all over the last 25 years.
You think Celtic Brits don't count as white? Have you seen us? We're some of the pastiest looking people you will ever meet. I could get sunburnt opening the fridge.
That is also bullshit (although a popular myth, deliberately cultivated by 19th-century English supremacists to justify subjugating their Celtic neighbors). Every region in Britain has a majority of Insular Celtic DNA on average (though the fraction varies). Even in the most heavily Anglo-Saxon regions like East Anglia, Germanic DNA is in the minority.
And of course the Celtic Britons replaced the Neolithic farmers, who replaced the Mesolithic foragers, and so on. "Indigenous" becomes meaningless with so many population replacements.
In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.
When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the borrower keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.
And even so, you could say it all settles out in the end, but that ignores the fact that there have constant constant efforts (and successes) in eroding away the e̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ "death tax" during this same period.
However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets. It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
States have banned noncitizen voting for statewide elections for a century.
"While federal law does not prohibit noncitizens from voting in state or local elections, no state has allowed noncitizens to vote in statewide elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting in state elections in 1926."
Nothing says the 1996 law can't be undone (as it's not an amendment), and states can permit noncitizen voting outside of the Federal context if they feel like it. That's Federalism for you.
Supporters being victimized by the refugees they voted to flood into their countries. Anti-nuclear environmental activists causing billions of tons of excess pollution over the decades. Jews, Asians, etc. voting for DEI policies only to be systemically discriminated against. Prison abolitionists, restorative justice, abolish the police, etc. voters that are victimized by violent habitual offenders. LGBTQ+ voters that support unfettered Islamic immigration.
Don't go check out r/LeopardsAteMyFace, they ban left of center examples of people voting against their interests. People vote against their interests all the time because they've been indoctrinated and vote according to ideology, not rational self-interest.
>Have leftists voted to discriminate and get rid of the people born in Saxony-Anhalt?
Yes.
>In fact, which antisemitic leftists are close to governing anywhere in Germany right now?
Hopefully none of them.
>Have any antisemitic left party reached 44% of the vote anywhere?
Thankfully not.
>And third question you will certainly answer without fail: which party wants to talk less about the Shoah and uses nazi slogans casually in its communication?
No they didn't. The elections in 1933 were not by any means "free democratic elections." The election was far from fair and legal. It was carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation and illegal violence against political opponents.
>Like it or not, the Nazi regime was a legal result of democracy.
Wrong, this is false. They undemocratically jailed and then outlawed the opposition to secure the vote.
>Democracy, neither then nor now, requires an absolute majority, which is why so many European governments are formed as coalitions.
No one made this claim.
>AfD did not win a majority in Saxony-Anhalt either. Nevertheless, a person can justifiably feel disappointed by the democratic outcome, both then and now, without being dismissive of democracy itself.
The opposition parties and opponents are being dismissive of democracy itself. They're fascistically attempting to ban the AfD... banning the opposition to secue the vote, like the Nazis.
>I am doing my part to eliminate misinformation and stupidity in the world.
The best way for you to do that would be to stop posting. Thanks.
No we don't.
>It's public knowledge!
No it's not. We estimate his net worth based on public filings. We know next to nothing about his nonpublic holdings.
reply