Clint

Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

[Clint @liberclint]

@eltripletecom Sánchez, que lleva 8 años gobernando, va a ser responsable alguna vez de algo???
Yo ya no sé si habláis en serio o es cachondeo

[Clint @liberclint]

@imisstwitt_er @Vikingvictims @AidanSimardone Alaska must be Canadian then?

[Clint @liberclint]

@orenbarsky A veces es mejor estar callado y parecer tonto que hablar y despejar las dudas completamente

[Clint @liberclint]

@partitocrazy Hemos normalizado que opine de economía gente que no aprobaría un examen de matemáticas de 3º de la ESO

[Clint @liberclint]

@bansky___ Una de las cosas que más me sorprendió cuando empecé a conocer a los argentinos es que ellos mismos te reconocen que no se fian de ningún argentino que se encuentren por el mundo y que todos chamuyan

[Clint @liberclint]

@super105do @wstgoat7 Are you ok?

[Clint @liberclint]

@alb_olmos Hola

[Martin Varsavsky @martinvars]

¿Si la genética no importa cual es el argumento de darle el pasaporte a los que tienen un abuelo español?

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

I am watching the Argentina vs. Switzerland match, and an idea just occurred to me that perfectly illustrates how ridiculous the communist utopia is.

There are only 70,000 seats in the stadium. Some seats are better than others.

Someone will sit on the fifty-yard line, someone else behind a concrete pillar. Someone will be close enough to hear the players talk, while another person will watch through binoculars.

How do you decide who gets what?

In a market economy, the people who value those seats the most pay for them. It may not produce equal outcomes, but it provides a clear and voluntary mechanism for allocating scarcity.

An egalitarian system has a much harder problem.

If everyone is equal, why should one person sit in the front row while another sits in the upper deck?

Should everyone enter a lottery? If so, should the winner be allowed to win again?

Should families be treated differently from individuals? Should people who contribute more to society receive priority?

If they do, equality has already disappeared. If they don’t, incentives begin to disappear.

Scarcity creates hierarchy.

The same problem appears everywhere.

There are only so many beachfront homes. Only so many tables by the window in a restaurant. Only so many appointments with the best surgeon. Only so many parking spaces close to the entrance. Only so many tickets to a sold-out concert. Only so many places at the country’s best universities.

Every society must answer the same question: who gets the scarce resource?

Markets answer through voluntary exchange. Bureaucracies answer through rules. Political systems answer through power. Lotteries answer through chance.

Egalitarian utopias constantly collide with reality.

Human beings differ in talent, effort, preferences, luck, ambition, and the value they place on particular goods.

Scarcity ensures that not everyone can have everything they want.

The irony is that societies built in the name of equality rarely eliminate hierarchy. They merely change who sits in the front row. Instead of customers choosing with their own money, officials choose through political influence, connections, or administrative power. The privileged class does not disappear; it simply changes its name.

The front row always exists. The only question is who decides who gets to sit there.

[Juan Soto Ivars @juansotoivars]

Un verdadero socialdemócrata (as myself) exigiría un Estado lo más pequeño posible y unos servicios públicos lo más grandes posibles y lo más blindados del fraude que se pueda. Pero los socialdemócratas españoles se limitan a aplaudir que se gaste mucho y que se gaste más y más.

[Clint @liberclint]

@marasfero Se llama síndrome de Estocolmo.

[Clint @liberclint]

En una sociedad sana, los jóvenes cuidan de sus mayores
En España, los pensionistas cuidan de los jóvenes

[Clint @liberclint]

@JMGJurado Correlación no es causalidad. La economía hay que entenderla con razonamiento lógico, no cogiendo datos individuales al azar.

[Clint @liberclint]

@ihteshamali "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" — Arthur C. Clarke

[Clint @liberclint]

@Apu_elrojo

[Clint @liberclint]

@CapoD4L3554ndr0 Porque los dos ganan. El trabajador obtiene un sueldo y el propietario la mano de obra que necesita. Si no fuera una situación win-win el trabajador no iría a trabajar. Nadie le obliga.

[Clint @liberclint]

Y todavía hay gente que piensa que el socialismo es diferente del fascismo

[Ma Wukong 马悟空 @Ma_WuKong]

Idea: pena de muerte para cuando superas un límite amoral de riqueza.

Cada sociedad vota el límite que considera moralmente correcto y, si se supera, kaput. Y la riqueza se reparte socialmente.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

The problem with universal suffrage is that the more technologically advanced a civilization becomes, the smaller the fraction of people there are in it with the native intelligence to understand how it works.

When the majority of humanity was employed in whacking at the dirt with a pointed stick, and the height of technology was a slightly better pointed stick, anyone with a triple digit IQ could understand what was going on.

Now, we have things like stock markets, the internet, transportation infrastructure, and the Linux kernel, but most people who vote are unable to conceive of these as anything but large piles of chocolate coins, or something else they can put their mouths.

Because that's how the average monkey interacts with money. They stack the blocks, the research assistant gives them a token, they exchange the token for a banana.

It's no good trying to explain to the monkeys what supply chain is, or how a trillion dollars worth of rockets can't magically be converted into a trillion dollars worth of bananas just because they're both measured in dollars, as if a six-foot man and a six-foot plank of wood were interchangeable.

Finding a slightly different explanation, or getting the monkeys to sit still and really listen, doesn't really help.

Because the problem isn't just that the monkeys aren't paying attention. The problem is that the monkeys are monkeys.

Their brains simply don't have the developmental capacity to grow the neural connections they would need in order to grasp and manipulate the concept.

In the long term, this is why universal democracy is doomed. Because societies that let retards vote will fail, and be replaced by those that don't.

You may think that we, as a society, face a great variety of problems. We do not. We have only one. Retards. Every other problem we have is downstream from their inability to understand the consequences of their political opinions.

But to fully grasp the implications of this, you have to understand that the definition of "retard" changes over time, as technology advances, because the IQ level required to grasp what's really going on gets steadily higher and higher.

Eventually, the category "retard" grows until it includes the average person.

This has already happened.

Nick Knudsen isn't dumber than the average guy. But the average guy, the 100 IQ salt of the earth guy that's sitting on the next bar stool over, can no longer understand the modern economy. And this isn't correctable, because the problem isn't ignorance, it's complexity.

You can't make Nick Knudsen smarter by telling him things. You can't even make him less ignorant, because the bare facts aren't believable to someone who doesn't have the framework to understand how they fit together.

The people who understand what's going on are so much smarter than him that he doesn't even think they sound smart.

He thinks they sound crazy.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.

Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.

Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.

Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.

Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.

La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

[Clint @liberclint]

@gemagoldie @Enriqueveritas @elizabethlamot ¿A qué te refieres con democracia entonces?