J82US

A Curious Mind

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

The planet is not warming to dangerous levels. Temperatures have risen by only 1.4 degrees since the end of a 500 year little ice age, 175 years ago, when the world population was around 1 billion. The industrial revolution was hardly enough to register. The record 'heatwave' you wrongly portray is just a natural variation in the regional weather. These locations all vary depending on local conditions. The climate campaign is a hoax and a swindle, interested only in driving a massive cash flow. The cost of $275 trillion by 2050 is five times global GDP.

[Marissa Streit @marissastreit]

.@GadSaad argues that conservatives tend to be happier because they see society as imperfect but still worth preserving, while progressives mostly see society as fundamentally broken and believe true happiness lies in creating a future utopia. He says this mindset creates a desire to erase existing traditions, institutions, and societal structures in pursuit of an unattainable idealized future. Watch here: https://t.co/exAlMFINmC

[John Arnold @johnarnold]

America's cultural ideal has been the self-made entrepreneur while Europe's was rooted in aristocracy, with status inherited rather than earned. Europe's inheritance laws show this divide.

Many European countries have "forced heirship" laws that require people to leave 50-75% of their estates to their children. Want to leave the majority of your wealth to charity? not allowed. Your kids are estranged from you, struggling with addiction, or irresponsible? still required to give them the money. Want your kids to avoid a life of entitlement? tough.

Incredibly, these laws look back at transfers made during your lifetime. If you have 3 children in France, you're required to bequeath them a minimum of 75% of your estate. Because French law calculates this based on your assets at death plus all lifetime gifts, giving away more than 25% of your wealth while alive means your heirs can legally sue to force charities or foundations to return the funds. This has limited the development of the nonprofit sector on the continent.

The cultural gap between an entrepreneurial society and one shaped by dynastic wealth is enormous. If you make it yourself, you tend to want your kids to do the same. If you inherit it, the primary goal is protecting the estate for the next gen.

Countries like Spain, France, and Italy legally entrench family dynasties, while America has historically sought to limit them through estate taxes. The result is not only a weaker culture of philanthropy and civil society in Europe, but also less economic dynamism.

[Milton Friedman Quotes @MiltonFriedmanW]

“You cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration.”

— Milton Friedman

[CNBC @CNBC]

Jeff Bezos: "If I do my job right, the value to society and civilization from my for-profit companies will be much, much larger than the good that I do with my charitable giving."

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

C'est exactement l'inverse de ta question. Et ça mérite qu'on prenne le temps de le démontrer proprement.

Le marché est le seul mécanisme honnête qu'on ait jamais inventé pour identifier qui crée de la valeur réelle. Chaque dollar qu'Elon a accumulé est un vote volontaire de millions de gens qui ont jugé que ce qu'il proposait valait leur argent. Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink. Personne n'a été forcé. Personne n'a voté avec un flingue sur la tempe. Des gens ont sorti leur portefeuille librement parce que le produit résolvait un problème mieux que les alternatives.

C'est ça, la richesse créée par le marché. Pas du vol. Pas une captation. De la valeur ajoutée mesurée en temps réel par des milliards de transactions volontaires.

Maintenant, la vraie question. Pourquoi quelqu'un comme Elon devrait continuer à vouloir gagner plus alors qu'il pourrait s'arrêter, acheter une île, et passer le reste de sa vie à boire des cocktails ?

Parce que passé un certain seuil, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation. C'est du capital. C'est de la munition pour exécuter une vision. Elon ne veut pas plus d'argent pour acheter une douzième villa. Il veut plus de capital parce que rendre l'humanité multi-planétaire coûte cher. Construire une constellation de 40 000 satellites coûte cher. Réinventer l'industrie automobile coûte cher. Acheter Twitter pour défendre la liberté d'expression coûte 44 milliards.

Chaque dollar qu'il accumule devient un dollar qu'il peut allouer à un problème que personne d'autre n'a le courage, la compétence, ou les moyens de résoudre.

Et c'est là que ta question révèle son erreur de fond. Tu raisonnes comme si la richesse était un gâteau fixe et que sa part énorme privait les autres. Mais l'économie n'est pas un jeu à somme nulle. Elon n'a pas pris l'argent de quelqu'un pour faire SpaceX. Il a créé une entreprise qui a divisé par 10 le coût d'accès à l'orbite, ce qui ouvre l'espace à des milliers d'acteurs qui n'auraient jamais pu y aller. Il a créé Tesla, qui a forcé toute l'industrie automobile mondiale à basculer vers l'électrique 20 ans plus tôt que prévu. Il a créé Starlink, qui connecte des villages entiers en Afrique et en Amazonie qui n'auraient jamais eu internet autrement.

Le compteur de richesse d'Elon n'est pas un trophée d'égoïste. C'est un score qui mesure combien de valeur il a injectée dans le système.

Et le mécanisme qui pousse à continuer ce jeu, c'est exactement ce qui le rend sain. Le jour où on dit à un Elon "stop, t'as assez", on tue l'incitation pour la prochaine génération à essayer de faire pareil. On envoie le signal qu'au-delà d'un certain niveau, ton ambition sera punie. Et là, on n'a plus de SpaceX. On n'a plus de Neuralink. On n'a plus de Starship. On a des bureaucraties molles qui produisent des PowerPoints sur la transition écologique pendant que la Chine envoie des taïkonautes sur la Lune.

Elon est le Léonard de Vinci de notre époque. Sauf que là où Léonard devait quémander des financements à des Médicis pour pouvoir dessiner ses machines volantes, Elon a construit son propre Médicis en interne. C'est précisément ce qui lui permet d'exécuter à une échelle qu'aucune institution publique ne peut égaler. Pas parce que les fonctionnaires sont incompétents, mais parce que les structures bureaucratiques sont mathématiquement incapables d'absorber le risque qu'un entrepreneur peut prendre seul avec son propre capital.

Donc oui, il mérite mille milliards. Il mérite plusieurs milliers de milliards. Tant qu'il continue à try-hard comme il le fait, à dormir au sol dans ses usines, à pousser des projets que personne d'autre n'oserait financer, le marché doit continuer à le récompenser. C'est le signal que le système lui envoie pour lui dire "continue, on a besoin de toi, ne lâche rien".

Le jour où on trouvera ça scandaleux qu'un homme qui rend l'humanité multi-planétaire devienne immensément riche, c'est qu'on aura perdu toute compréhension de ce qui fait avancer une civilisation.

[Senator Ron Johnson @SenRonJohnson]

Today, I released a report showing that Biden health officials knew that safety signals for COVID-19 injection injuries were being hidden by their VAERS analytic algorithm.

They were shown an updated algorithm that signaled serious adverse events, but they refused to use it. Their cover-up jeopardized the health of millions of Americans.

Read my interim report and see the records here:

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 EPA ADMIN LEE ZELDIN WITH THE ULTIMATE MIC DROP

"I told Sen. Sheldon WhiteClub [Whitehouse] today that I won’t be listening to or caring about any of his lessons on 'MORALITY' knowing that he joined an all-white Rhode Island Country Club!"

He just keeps PUMMELING these Dems!

"Climate alarmist AOC wants to be taken seriously while also insisting the world is imminently about to end due to climate change — Just under 5 years remain on her nutty Jan 2019 prediction that only 12 years of life are left on Earth)."

"Al Gore is now speaking publicly about his concern with global freezing after decades of grift talking about global warming. “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” said Gore in 2006 (There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round). Gore also predicted in 2009 ice-free Arctic summers within 5-7 years."

"John Kerry warned in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. These people are dishonest, power-hungry hacks. The GREEN NEW SCAM is DEAD!!!" @epaleezeldin said

Freaking awesome.

What a GREAT Trump pick!

[Rep. Josh Williams @JoshWilliamsOH]

I'm a black Republican who currently represents a majority-white district in the Ohio State House and is running to represent a majority-white district in Congress.

The idea that black Americans need special districts carved out just for them is complete nonsense. It's a violation of the law and blatantly unconstitutional.

Glad the Supreme Court made the right decision.

[Fox News @FoxNews]

“I fled socialism… I don’t want California to end up in the same place.”

Google co-founder Sergey Brin is blasting a proposed billionaire tax as he relocates out of the Golden State, saying the idea echoes the kind of system his family fled decades ago in the Soviet Union.

He’s now based on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe as the measure heads toward voters — a move he warns could have lasting consequences.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

“World War Eleven”

Yes, that was deadly

[Alec Lace @AlecLace]

🚨 MUST WATCH:

Johnny Carson (a Democrat) opens the 1981 Oscars, a day after the assassination attempt on President Reagan, with genuine class and respect.

The entire liberal Hollywood crowd erupts in applause.

Today? Jimmy Kimmel jokes about Melania Trump becoming a widow.

[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.

[Doge Tipping @Dogetothemoon]

@theallinpod That is true

[The All-In Podcast @theallinpod]

David Sacks: Nonprofits need to manufacture problems in America to stay in business

David Sacks:

“Here's the systemic problem with nonprofits and NGOs.

Let me just contrast it with business.

In business, you set up a company, the company has to make revenue, it has to make profits.

And if it doesn't, it's going to go out of business, right? Because it'll lose money.

So there's a feedback mechanism from the market.

With an NGO, nonprofit, what have you, they raise money. They don't sell things.

They fundraise from donors in order to engage in an activity, but what happens over time is the actual activities may stop mattering, and all that really matters is they're able to keep fundraising, right?

Because they're just trying to figure out a justification to keep going back to donors to get more and more money out of them.

That's what perpetuates the organization.”

Chamath:

“ Why wouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center focus on southern poverty? Which is an issue that actually still exists in some shape or form.

Why do you call it one thing, focus on racism, and then all of a sudden whip up fake racism?”

Sacks:

“I do think that at one time in this country, civil rights was a noble cause, a very legitimate cause.

We had the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow, and there were groups that were set up to basically change that, and they succeeded.

But again, no one in an NGO or a nonprofit ever declares victory.

When Obama got elected in 2008, regardless of whether you liked Obama or not, or agreed with his politics, I thought that at that point, most people could see that this was not a racist country.

Whatever else you could say, the fact that the highest office in the land was not denied to anybody showed that this country was not holding people back based on their skin color.

And instead of just basically packing up shop and saying, ‘Okay, we've achieved our goal,’ the goalposts all got moved.

Remember, that's when the whole anti-racism thing started, was around Obama's second term.

If they just said at that time, ‘You know what, we're going to move the goalposts from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We're going to basically make everyone equal at the finish line,’ which is to say, identity socialism.

People would've said, ‘Eh, no, we're not on board for that.’

So instead, they created this whole new terminology to justify it.

And it's taken us years to unpack that and realize what's really going on.”

[healthbot @thehealthb0t]

Having been called a liar by Anthony Fauci for saying that "not one of the 72 vaccines mandated for children has ever been safety tested", RFK Jr. sued Fauci.

After a year of stonewalling, Fauci's lawyers admitted that RFK Jr. had been right all along.

"There's no downstream liability, there's no front-end safety testing... and there's no marketing and advertising costs, because the federal government is ordering 78 million school kids to take that vaccine every year."

"What better product could you have? And so there was a gold rush to add all these new vaccines to the schedule... because if you get onto that schedule, it's a billion dollars a year for your company."

"So we got all of these new vaccines, 72 shots, 16 vaccines... And that year, 1989, we saw an explosion in chronic disease in American children... ADHD, sleep disorders, language delays, ASD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, ticks, narcolepsy."

"Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation... to one in every 34 kids today."

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Sunlight at Earth's surface has surged since the 1980s.

Germany's Potsdam station shows 15 more W/m² of solar energy reaching the ground than during the 1970s dimming era.

The Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan all show the same trend. Austria shows even more: 23 extra W/m².

It's called global brightening.

As air pollution dropped, the atmosphere cleared and sunlight flooded back in. That increase in surface radiation is 10 times larger than the forcing from CO2 over the same period.

In short, the air got cleaner, the sunlight stronger and the land a little warmer. The data say so, the physics say so, it's only the narrative that doesn't.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

All indicators of planetary health are glowing green.

Yet the UN says Earth Day (April 22) is a reminder that all climate indicators are flashing red. Climate chaos, collapsing biodiversity and a 1.5 degree temperature limit are all slipping out of reach (using 'red' in relation to melting polar ice caps and ocean heat).

But comprehensive climate datasets show the direct opposite.

🟢 Greening: 25% to 50% increase (NASA).
🌳 Forestry: Tree cover up 10.8% since 1982.
🏝️ Land: Net land area grew by 22,400 sq miles.

A NASA climate analysis in 'Nature' reveals a persistent and widespread greening increase over 25% to 50% of vegetated areas between 1982 to 2014. Tree cover worldwide has also risen by 2.9% to 10.8% from 1982 to 2016. (NASA's 2016 Nature Climate Change; 2018 Global Tree Cover.)

As for the disappearing islands narrative, Earth's net land area grew by about 22,400 square miles from 1985 to 2015; coastal land area alone grew by around 5,200 square miles, due to accretion, land reclamation and geological shifts. Extinctions caused by 'climate change' have not increased significantly either for at least 200 years. Extinction rates shown to be in decline.

Weather records show global hurricane frequency and intensity have not increased since 1970, as far back as reliable data extend. NOAA and the IPCC often note low confidence in long-term global trends of hurricane frequency.

Studies show Earth’s climate has fluctuated substantially over geological history, with temperatures either much warmer or much colder than today. The college textbook, 'Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology', said core samples in Greenland and Norway showed no climate trends, just highly variable conditions, shifting rapidly from ‘mild’ to ‘glacial’. Some climatic shifts take under 10 years; most take less than 100 years.

These contradictions highlight fundamental flaws about how the UN's climate crisis dataset is being collected and presented:

* Data tends to select short-term trends and local anecdotes, yet ignore longer-term comprehensive data.

* Deficient datasets are increasingly incomplete over older time frames.

* They fail to account for the robust effects of population growth and economic development.

* Computer models are used to predict future conditions, but are mostly 'notoriously' unreliable. Modelling is preferred to create an 'illusion' of knowledge, veracity and precision.

By prioritising flexible computer simulations over observable physical data, the climate framework is a tool for administrative expansion than a search for empirical truth.
https://t.co/bhzM7ED9Lo

[Defiant L’s @DefiantLs]

This is a must watch.

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

Bill Maher asks how the government is “failing the poor so badly” when he pays “60 PERCENT” of his earnings in taxes.

“Last week was tax day… I paid the government probably almost 60% of what I earn. That’s a lot.”

“And I… wouldn’t mind if Bernie Sanders would stop saying the rich don’t pay taxes.”

“The top 10% pay 72% of all federal income taxes. And the bottom half, 3%.”

“The Democratic Socialists talk about socialism like we don’t already have a lot: Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, nutritional assistance, Medicaid, Obamacare, disability, housing subsidies.”

“How can you be soaking the rich and failing the poor so badly? How can it be that the federal government alone took in over 5 trillion in taxes last year, and we still need that?”

“Are we really this incompetent and corrupt?”