Devenne

Psalm 121:2

[Alfie Ramshaw @33JustBrowsing]

The UK borrowed almost as much in May 2026 alone (£23.3bn), as it did during the entire 2018/19 fiscal year (£23.5bn).

This is a slow motion disaster and almost no one is talking about it.

[Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes]

PAT MCFADDEN: EVERY MEETING I HAVE IS "WHO CAN WE TAX IN ORDER TO PAY BENEFITS TO OTHERS"

[John Wills @johndotwills]

A lot of time housebuilders get stick for failing to build 'the right number' of social houses as part of a development plan. It may help to get a little insight into how development economics works. You may find the below linked tweet interesting as well- it ties into what I am talking about here neatly: https://t.co/yCokc96TBP

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.

Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.

Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.

Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.

Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.

À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.

Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.

Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.

Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.

Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.

Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.

Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.

Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :

"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

[Andrew James @FreeNationTalk]

VAT on private school fees was sold as a policy on two grounds.

1) Taxpayers were “subsidising” private education of the wealthy.

2) The policy would raise £1.5 billion a year and fund 6,500 new teachers.

These were both lies, and have been proven to be so.

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) suggests that the net cost to the economy of this crazy policy could reach as much as £1.58 billion.

In other words

1. Private schools were actually already subsidising state education.

2. Rather than filling the public purse with extra revenue this policy is sucking funds out of the public sector pot.

Once again, as with every major government policy, these people were elected on a raft of lies and invalidated assumptions.

[Creative Deduction @CreativeDeduct]

@PolitlcsUK @DailyMail What? Lowering the voting age was a cynical strategy to rig the voting system and not a principled belief? Crazy…

[Devenne @DevenneK]

@Telegraph But I thought…

[George @verybasedgeorge]

@PolitlcsUK can we get to see what "unemployed Starmer" looks like instead?

[Ross Kempsell @RossKempsell]

IMPORTANT: PMQs Wed 4 Feb

Starmer asked 'did the security vetting he received mention Mandelson's relationship with Epstein'

Starmer answers: 'yes it did'

So Starmer had seen the DV vetting

So how can he have been unaware that Mandelson had failed that DV?

#receipts

[Devenne @DevenneK]

@PolitlcsUK @zoenora6 Degenerate demon.

[Claire Coutinho @ClaireCoutinho]

Many couples work hard, but cannot afford to have another child.

Yet from this week, they’ll be paying more in tax so that couples on welfare with four, five, or six children receive more in benefits.

This is not fair. It is not compassionate to make welfare pay more than work.

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

US fertility reached 1.57 last year, the lowest ever recorded, and the WSJ explanation is "uncertainty about finances, relationship stability, and the political climate"

my great grandma had eleven children during the second world war, in a country being bombed, in a house with no running water, on rations.
poor people have always had kids. the poorest people on earth right now still have kids and the financial excuse is a story we tell ourselves because it makes us feel good and the real one is unbearable

the real mechanism is that we got rich enough to redefine children as an expense instead of the point. somewhere in the last fifty years the cultural goal inverted and a child stopped being what life is for and became a line item competing with the lifestyle. once you frame it that way the math never works, because the math isnt supposed to work. that's the point

we are living in the richest moment in human history and we decided to use the surplus to buy ourselves out of the future. the most prosperous civilization that has ever existed is committing demographic suicide at the altar of personal optimization and comfort, and the official line is that we cant afford it

the birthrate is a lagging indicator of a civilization that forgot why it was alive

[Rugby Conservatives @RugbyTory]

YOUR CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES FOR RUGBY'S ELECTIONS 💪🔵

Rugby Conservatives are fielding candidates in all parts of Rugby at the upcoming council elections.

Here are our candidates:

Hillmorton: Devenne Kedward
Paddox: Joel Baldwin
Newbold and Brownsover: Wayne Rabin

[Zynx @ZynxBTC]

The UK has a far flatter income distribution than the Communist Soviet Union.

The UK take home minimum wage for working a full time job (40-hours) is now £22,555.

At £100k salary, the take home is £68,558.

That is a net income ratio of 3.04:1

We are now at the point where the wage compression and taxes in the UK means that the difference between minimum wage and a top 5% salary is a net income difference of only ~3x.

In the USSR using the same comparison, this figure never fell below 5:1

It's actually even worse in reality because the person earning £100k in the UK often has student loans.

Britain is nominally capitalist but functionally communist. China is nominally communist but functionally capitalist.

Funny how that works.

[Devenne @DevenneK]

I completely understand the anger, my point is that many of those key figures that were part of the failure which caused that anger have joined Reform. I don’t get why you can see past their failures and make excuses for them, whilst demonising the Tories as a whole. There are people in there visibly working hard to change things from the inside after learning a hard lesson, whereas those that didn’t want to put that work in jumped to Reform to likely change that from the inside, but not in a good way. The ongoing changes to the Tories will eventually root out the remaining wets, Reform seems to be collecting new wets at an alarming rate.

[Devenne @DevenneK]

If you’re happy to offer excuses for all of those who joined Reform (largely out of self-service), as now they have a ‘new leader and policies’, why won’t you apply the same logic to those who remained with the Cons, also under a new leader and policies, who’ve been working to change the party for the better from the inside, as, again by your logic, they also had little choice?

[Catholic Arena @CatholicArena]

BREAKING ✝️

Pope Leo XIV PROSTRATES before altar in Saint Peter's Basilica on Good Friday

[Catholic Sat @CatholicSat]

For the first time since 1994, the Pope is personally carrying the Cross for all 14 Stations of the Cross, as Pope Leo XIV leads the Via Crucis at Rome’s Colosseum in the first Good Friday of his Pontificate.

[Devenne @DevenneK]

@BishopJaxi Please ensure I can fully assume authority over you by making me the Archbishop. I’ll wear my rainbow scarf x