Terence Graw

Backcountry, hockey, and economics.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

This is a thought provoking tweet. History is moving quickly in modern times.

[Wealth Squad Chris @Chrissssjohnson]

Crazy how we had to read about Henry Ford or Rockafeller in books but we got to see Elon Musk’s work in real time

[Peter Hague @peterrhague]

Intellectuals keep getting seduced by the idea of a one world government. Even, in a space colonising future, a one solar system government. All of humanity organised under a single polity.

This is a polity you cannot leave. It will forcibly prevent you. Like East Germany.

If people like this ever succeed in shutting down the foot vote in this way, their system had better be perfect or they have condemned us to hell. Of course, they have immense faith in their own intelligence and benevolence. But those wiser than them with a grasp of history don’t share it.

[Wolf of X @WolfofX]

Some nursing homes struggle to attract visitors. One in the Netherlands chose to invite roommates instead.

In the Dutch city of Deventer, a retirement home called Humanitas introduced an idea that would eventually gain attention around the world.

Rather than accepting loneliness as a normal part of aging, they approached it as something that could actually be solved.

For over ten years, Humanitas has allowed university students to live inside the nursing home rent free.

In return, the students spend about thirty hours each month connecting with residents. Sometimes that means sharing meals, having conversations, helping with technology, joining activities, or simply keeping someone company during a quiet afternoon.

They are not nurses or employees. They are simply part of the community.

At first, the idea sounded like a smart response to expensive student housing.

But the real impact appeared in the lives of the residents. Reports from outlets such as PBS NewsHour and AARP described seniors becoming more social, more active, and less isolated once younger people became part of everyday life.

What makes the story even more meaningful is that many students chose to spend far more time there than the agreement required.

Some even stayed connected after graduating. Over time, casual interactions turned into genuine friendships.

Humanitas didn’t really create something new. It brought back something many societies once had naturally: different generations living side by side instead of separately.

Maybe the issue was never aging itself. Maybe it was the distance we created between generations.

Sometimes the most powerful ideas are simply old human connections rediscovered.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

@DavidStaplesYEG @edmontonjournal Interesting read. The more digging that is done, the more I realize that Bowman truly is not a quality GM.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction.

La déconstruction est le virus mental le plus efficace jamais conçu contre une civilisation. Il a été fabriqué en France entre 1966 et 1980 par trois hommes : Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Il a été exporté aux États-Unis, hybridé avec le puritanisme racial américain, et il est revenu trente ans plus tard sous le nom de wokisme paralyser l'Occident entier. Voici comment il fonctionne, et pourquoi il faut le détruire.

La thèse est simple. Toute vérité n'est qu'un rapport de pouvoir déguisé. Tout texte sacré, toute loi, toute science, toute norme, toute hiérarchie, toute identité, toute institution cache en réalité une domination. Déconstruire, c'est montrer le rapport de force sous le vernis du vrai. C'est arracher le masque. C'est "démasquer".

Formulé comme ça, ça paraît inoffensif. Voire utile. Qui n'aime pas un peu d'esprit critique ? Le piège est là. La déconstruction se présente comme une méthode. Elle est en réalité une ontologie. Elle ne dit pas seulement "interrogeons les normes", elle dit "il n'y a *que* des rapports de pouvoir". La différence est civilisationnelle.

Une société qui interroge ses normes reste debout. Une société qui croit que ses normes ne sont *rien d'autre* que de la domination s'effondre. Parce qu'elle ne peut plus rien défendre. Plus une frontière, plus une loi, plus une science, plus une langue, plus une histoire, plus une biologie, plus une famille. Tout devient suspect. Tout devient négociable. Tout devient "construit donc déconstructible".

C'est la première raison pour laquelle c'est un virus. Il s'auto-réplique. Une fois inoculé, il transforme tout ce qu'il touche en cible. La science est patriarcale, donc déconstruisons-la. Le langage est colonial, donc réinventons-le. La méritocratie est raciste, donc abolissons-la. Le sexe est une construction, donc choisissons-le. Il n'y a plus de roc. Tout est sable.

Deuxième raison. Le virus est *non-falsifiable*. Si vous défendez une norme, c'est que vous êtes l'oppresseur. Si vous niez être oppresseur, c'est la preuve de votre privilège inconscient. Si vous citez des faits, vos faits sont contaminés par le pouvoir qui les a produits. Si vous citez la raison, la raison elle-même est blanche, masculine, occidentale. Il n'y a aucune sortie possible. Le système est conçu pour rendre toute objection irrecevable par définition.

C'est exactement la structure d'une secte. Et c'est exactement ce qui s'est installé dans les universités, les RH, les médias, les administrations, les conseils d'administration depuis vingt ans.

Troisième raison. Le virus s'auto-réfute mais ne s'auto-détruit pas. Si toute vérité est pouvoir, alors la phrase "toute vérité est pouvoir" est elle-même du pouvoir, donc sans valeur. Logiquement, la déconstruction se mord la queue dès la première phrase. Mais elle s'en moque. Parce qu'elle n'a jamais cherché la cohérence. Elle cherche l'efficacité politique. Et son efficacité politique est immense. Elle désarme ses ennemis et arme ses militants. Elle paralyse le défenseur et libère l'attaquant. C'est une arme asymétrique parfaite.

Quatrième raison. Le virus produit des humains diminués. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Elle sait soupçonner, jamais admirer. Elle voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Elle peut produire mille pages sur le caractère opprimant de Shakespeare et zéro ligne qui vaille la peine d'être lue dans cent ans. Elle a confondu l'intelligence critique avec la pose critique. Elle est stérile par construction. Un esprit nourri à la déconstruction est un esprit qui ne sait plus rien édifier.

Cinquième raison, la plus grave. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers. La croyance qu'une vérité est accessible à la raison. La croyance qu'un bien se distingue d'un mal. La croyance qu'un héritage mérite d'être transmis. La déconstruction a méthodiquement dynamité les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui avait nourri ses prophètes. Mais le résultat est là. Une civilisation qui ne croit plus en sa vérité, ni en son bien, ni en son héritage ne se défend pas. Elle s'excuse en attendant la fin.

Voilà ce qu'on a fait. Voilà ce qu'il faut nommer.

La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'un virus mental ne survit que tant qu'on lui cède l'autorité du discours. Il meurt dès qu'on cesse de jouer son jeu. Dès qu'on réaffirme tranquillement qu'il existe une vérité, un beau, un bien, un héritage. Dès qu'on cesse de demander la permission aux déconstructeurs pour bâtir. Dès qu'on refait. Dès qu'on transmet. Dès qu'on crée.

Les bâtisseurs ont toujours le dernier mot sur les commentateurs. Toujours. Parce qu'à la fin il reste ce qui est construit, et rien de ce qui a été déconstruit.

Alors aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. Et demain je construis.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Le socialisme économique a tué plus de pauvres qu'il n'en a sauvés.

Dans la vie, il y a deux types de personnes.

Les idéologues. Et ceux drivés par la data.

Si tu veux sincèrement le bien des gens, si tu veux moins de pauvres, moins de misère, plus de dignité, alors tu devrais forcément être sur une ligne libérale.

Ce n'est pas une opinion. C'est ce que dit la réalité.

Depuis 1820, l'extrême pauvreté mondiale est passée de 80% à moins de 9%. Pas grâce à la redistribution. Pas grâce aux plans quinquennaux. Grâce au capitalisme, au commerce, à la division du travail, à l'innovation portée par des entrepreneurs qui ont eu le droit de tenter, de risquer, de créer.

L'Index of Economic Freedom le montre chaque année avec une régularité presque gênante pour les socialistes : plus un pays est libre économiquement, plus il est prospère, plus son espérance de vie est haute, plus ses inégalités absolues s'effondrent, plus la classe moyenne est large. Corée du Sud vs Corée du Nord. Allemagne de l'Ouest vs Allemagne de l'Est. Chili vs Venezuela. Singapour vs n'importe quelle économie planifiée. La data ne ment pas.

La main invisible n'est pas une métaphore poétique. C'est une réalité opératoire. Des millions d'individus poursuivant leur intérêt personnel produisent un ordre coordonné qu'aucun planificateur central ne pourrait concevoir. C'est ce que Hayek a démontré avec le problème de la connaissance dispersée. Aucun bureau, aucun comité, aucune IA centrale ne peut agréger l'information locale que possède chaque acteur économique. Le marché si.

Et la création de valeur nette dans nos sociétés ne vient pas de l'État. Elle ne vient pas des fonctionnaires. Elle ne vient pas des syndicalistes. Elle vient des entrepreneurs. Ceux qui prennent le risque, qui combinent capital, travail et idées, qui transforment des ressources de moindre valeur en biens et services de plus grande valeur. Tout le reste, dans nos économies, est financé par cette création là. Y compris les redistributeurs qui crachent dessus.

Le socialisme économique n'a jamais sorti personne de la pauvreté. Il a juste partagé la misère plus équitablement, là où il a été appliqué sérieusement. Le Venezuela avait le PIB par habitant de l'Espagne dans les années 70. Aujourd'hui les gens y mangent leurs animaux domestiques. Cuba en est encore aux voitures des années 50. La Corée du Nord laisse mourir sa population.

Donc la prochaine fois que vous croisez un marxiste, un socialiste économique, un type qui vous explique qu'il faut « réguler le capitalisme sauvage », posez lui simplement la question :

pourquoi tu nies la réalité?

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

Some hard work by Podkolzin pays off nicely. Exceptionally nice work on the entry to get Drai the puck in space.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

That was an amazingly beautiful pass by Walman. Exceptionally nice timing to hit Dickenson with speed!

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

@TopTierPucks It's going to be a good game tonight!

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

@Mileistesfr This is an interesting observation I haven't seen the data on before. I'd be curious to see similar data for less developed countries.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

@OilersLegend It's going to be a fun run!

[Jonathan Willis @JonathanWillis]

Bouchard gets a lot of flak for allowing chances against. What people don't realize is that of Edmonton's eight-most used defencemen, he actually had *the very best* goals-against rate when his team is leading by a single goal.

He's situationally aware: he can defend a lead.

[Jonathan Willis @JonathanWillis]

Bouchard isn't just on the ice for the PK; he's excellent. Edmonton's goal differential improves by more than 2.5 goals/hour when he's on:

- on the ice at 4v5: -5.6 goals/hour
- off the ice at 4v5: -8.2 goals/hour

He's also the only 60+ point D with multiple shorthanded points.

[Bruce Nielson @bnielson01]

The trouble with “burden of proof” is that it quickly turns into a rhetorical hot potato—each side assigns the burden to 'the other guy'.

A more productive standard is what we might call a burden of explanation.

The idea—drawn from the philosophy of Karl Popper—is that what really matters is which theory explains more in a way that could be wrong. A strong explanation doesn’t just assert something; it places meaningful constraints on what could be true. The more a theory rules out, the more it tells us—and the more it exposes itself to potential failure.

That’s a feature, not a flaw. Explanations gain power precisely by taking risks—by making claims that could, in principle, fail. Explanatory strength is therefore tied to constraint which is equivalent to testability or reach: the broader and more precise the explanation, the more it genuinely engages with reality. This is even true for non-empirical theories, though in that case you're looking at logical content instead of empirical-content.

This flips the usual dynamic. Instead of trying to avoid responsibility, you want your view to carry the explanatory load. If your position accounts for more, rules out more, and withstands more scrutiny, then it’s doing better work. Offloading that burden isn’t a win—it’s effectively conceding that your view has less to say. Properly understood, the burden of explanation is something you want to take on yourself, not assign to 'the other guy'—the exact opposite of “burden of proof.”

Seen this way, weak positions tend to drift toward explanations so flexible they can accommodate anything. But an explanation that can’t, even in principle, be challenged ends up explaining nothing at all.

Or put more compactly: content = constraint = boldness/riskiness = falsifiability = testability = reach.

This also clarifies why ad hoc adjustments are problematic. If you patch a theory merely to shield it from criticism, you reduce its explanatory content—you make it less constrained and less informative. The only worthwhile revisions are those that increase the overall content of your (collective) theories.

So rather than arguing over who has to “prove” something, it’s more fruitful to ask: which view actually explains more, in a way that could turn out to be wrong?

We all know Popper’s epistemology isn’t about proving a theory right. But the idea of burden of explanation also shows that it isn't about merely being the last unrefuted theory either.

An explanation with no content can’t be refuted, so if “survival” were the sole standard, empty explanations would always be preferred (X in a nutshell). And that’s exactly why they’re so appealing—they can always pose as the last surviving theory.

Instead, what you want is the burden of explanation, i.e. to show your theory has real meaningful content that the competing theories do not.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

@Cappy_Nate Curious to see what develops.

[Harry Rushworth @Hrushworth]

I am shocked to learn that rent controls in Spain are having exactly the same outcomes as every other attempt at rent controls everywhere else.

[🇨🇭🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿InLucysHead🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇨🇭© @InsideLucysHead]

Oxford University researchers have discovered the densest element yet known to science...

The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert.

However, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years.

It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

[Terence Graw @TerenceGraw]

It's been mentioned by others, but I've been ruminating this morning about the fact that had the Oilers simply kept the Lowe/MacTavish combination oh so long ago they would likely have multiple cups. There's a lesson in that somewhere, although I'm not quite sure precisely what it is.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

Many people, even self-described conservatives, think socialism would work if human nature were different.

No. Socialism cannot work, even in a hypothetical society of selfless genius saints.

Why not?

Because socialism centralizes economic choices. How much lumber do we produce? How much wheat? What should the hourly wage of a garbage collector be? How much should insulin cost? How about bread?

Socialists think that if you elect the right people, they will make these decisions intelligently and altruistically, and everything will be great.

But it doesn't matter how smart and benevolent you are... you can't make a good decision without the right information. The Socialist Central Planning Committee, however wise or benevolent, doesn't know what's wanted, or what's available, because that information is conveyed in prices, and accurate pricing is the very thing that socialist governments wipe away with the bureaucratic pen.

Capitalist networks are decentralized. They distribute decision making to where the information is.

A man selling metal doesn't know anything about desks, or lumber. He doesn't know how many desks people want, or whether they should be made out of oak, or folded metal.

But he does know how much it costs him to smelt iron ore into steel, and roll it into sheets. So he sets a price, and others decide whether, and how much, to buy.

That price contains the information others need to decide whether steel is plentiful, and should be folded into anything you can make out of sheet metal, or is scarce, and should be saved for things that can only be done with steel, and furniture should be made out of oak, or pine, instead.

Socialism works, or rather doesn't, by using the threat of force to set the prices of things, or take money from one person and give it to another.

But every time this happens, critical data on supply or demand is erased... data that you need to make decisions.

Individual prices are a decision, a guess at where supply and demand cross paths. But since free markets reward those who guess correctly, or copy a correct guess, aggregate prices are data on supply and demand.

For a socialist central planning committee to order the manufacture of the correct number of cars, or to correctly set the price of a car, they need to know a thousand thousand thousand things about steel and aluminium, welders and assembly robots, rubber and glass and lithium batteries and copper wire, which they must gather, along with trillions of other pieces of data, from literally everyone in their entire civilization.

Tesla only needs to know how much people charge them for the stuff they need.

At every transaction in a captialist society, vital data is compressed into its most compact and useful form, then passed along to the adjacent step, where abundant brainpower is waiting to make decisions with it.

Any defective node in the web that fails to make good decisions receives swift and automatic feedback, and either heeds that feedback or goes out of business, to be replaced by someone who will.

Yes, in a capitalist system, there are many undesirable results. But capitalism doesn't create these results. It discovers them. They are inevitable consequences of the state of technology, and will persist until something is invented that changes the terrain.

In socialism, no such solution is possible, because all the inherent problems you need to solve with progress are hidden from view by the far worse problems you created for yourself by separating the place where decisions are made from the place where information is known.

[Handre @Handre]

Mises obliterated the entire socialist project in 1920 with one devastating insight: "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism; without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation." The socialists spent the next century pretending this problem didn't exist while their economies collapsed around them.

And yet here we are, watching politicians promise they can "fix" healthcare, housing, and energy markets through central planning. They can't even calculate the cost of their own programs correctly — how exactly are they going to allocate resources across an entire economy?

Every Venezuelan breadline, every Soviet grain shortage, every Chinese famine was just Mises being proven right in the most brutal way possible. But sure, let's try democratic socialism this time. What could go wrong?