Pinned Tweet
@jakubwiechve to compare item by item and not the total economic output - you have already lost the argument. It's like when Belarus brags about producing 120,000 tractors a year. Try something like this - what the median person actually receives, accounting not only for income from wages ae various benefits and social transfers they receive, minus taxes👇
74
20
277
96,569
Bohumilo retweeted
Correct.
Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.
Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them.
Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.
Starlink remains critical to the defense of Ukraine, as it is the only system that cannot be jammed or blown up, at least for now. Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact.
Starlink was also crucial to preventing Russia from overrunning Ukraine in the early days of the war, as all other means of communication were destroyed or jammed by Russia.
SpaceX has done more to defend Ukraine than any private company on Earth BY FAR.
That said, I have nothing but UTTER CONTEMPT for the virtue-signaling evil warmongers who push for endless slaughter and offer no realistic solution to the conflict. May you burn in hell.
End of story.
Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.
Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them.
Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.
Starlink remains critical to the defense of Ukraine, as it is the only system that cannot be jammed or blown up, at least for now. Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact.
Starlink was also crucial to preventing Russia from overrunning Ukraine in the early days of the war, as all other means of communication were destroyed or jammed by Russia.
SpaceX has done more to defend Ukraine than any private company on Earth BY FAR.
That said, I have nothing but UTTER CONTEMPT for the virtue-signaling evil warmongers who push for endless slaughter and offer no realistic solution to the conflict. May you burn in hell.
End of story.
STARLINK WORKS THE SAME WAY ITS ALWAYS WORKED. ITS NOT A WEAPONS SYSTEM, NO MATTER HOW MUCH UKRAINE WANTS IT TO BE.
7,134
19,521
117,482
5,366,861
@bohumilo @spencerpratt It's great that he can throttle Internet during a war so that he can pick sides.
The guy is a self-serving piece of shit.
9
65
1,413
10,754
Commies think you can benefit society ONLY if you give things away for free. This is deeply wrong for two reasons:
1) It's unsustainable. You can give something away once, but you can sell it multiple times because you can once again obtain the resources needed for production. our production if you're good, sell to many more people, make them happy, too, improve your products, etc.
2) Even if you can somehow force people to give you resources for free (including making them give you their labor/work for free), without prices you can't know whether you're making people better off at all. You're transforming a bunch of stuff A into a bunch of stuff B. Is A worth less than B? Did you create or destroy value? Hard to tell. But with prices, it's easy: just see whether you're making a profit or a loss.
These two things—the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem—are why socialism failed.
1
0
8
358
Bohumilo retweeted
@bohumilog@databob55in absolute terms.
Over the last 200 years extreme poverty fell from roughly 80-90% of the world population in 1820 to under 10% today. Real incomes, nutrition, life expectancy and material conditions for the bottom rose substantially as overall growth shifted the entire income distribution upward, even while relative gaps sometimes widened.
Over the last 200 years extreme poverty fell from roughly 80-90% of the world population in 1820 to under 10% today. Real incomes, nutrition, life expectancy and material conditions for the bottom rose substantially as overall growth shifted the entire income distribution upward, even while relative gaps sometimes widened.
1
1
2
24
Bohumilo retweeted
Government programs are designed to produce the outcomes they produce. You just got conned by the marketing
No, the problem with government is precisely the opposite: it's NOT a corporation. It does NOT have a pyramid-shaped org chart, an undivided chain of command, and a singular goal of maximizing shareholder profits or the value of its assets.
For ex., in corporations, you wouldn't . Elon, you're the CEO of a corporation. Can you imagine this happening at Tesla?
0
1
1
17
The problem with the vast majority of politics and political campaigns is that economic growth—the most important factor in achieving the concrete goals political programs aim for—is almost entirely absent from the discussion.
Whatever specific goal you want to achieve—reducing poverty, improving healthcare, creating a cleaner environment, providing better education, etc.—it correlates at something like 0.9 or even 0.99 with income per capita. In other words, a country's income per capita almost completely explains / captures the outcome.
Whenever you're NOT talking about how to improve economic growth, you're aiming to solve the remaining 1%. Whatever your solution is, no matter how ingenious (say, finding a much better way to allocate healthcare), increasing your economic growth rate by 0.5% would outweigh it within a couple of years.
Whatever specific goal you want to achieve—reducing poverty, improving healthcare, creating a cleaner environment, providing better education, etc.—it correlates at something like 0.9 or even 0.99 with income per capita. In other words, a country's income per capita almost completely explains / captures the outcome.
Whenever you're NOT talking about how to improve economic growth, you're aiming to solve the remaining 1%. Whatever your solution is, no matter how ingenious (say, finding a much better way to allocate healthcare), increasing your economic growth rate by 0.5% would outweigh it within a couple of years.
True. And it has terrible practical policy implications. From the standpoint of relative poverty, economic growth is completely invisible: if everyone were to become a million times richer this second, the relative poverty rate wouldn't change one bit.
And we know that:
1) When ic needs (however you want to define or combine them—real poverty rates, health, nutrition, water and sanitation, housing, education, the environment...you name it), high income per capita is a necessary and sufficient condition: there is no high-income-per-capita country that hasn't met these needs, and no low-income-per-capita country that has.
2) Economic inequality does not impact people's well-being. Absolute conditions and standards of living are what matter.
2
3
21
435
No, the problem with government is precisely the opposite: it's NOT a corporation. It does NOT have a pyramid-shaped org chart, an undivided chain of command, and a singular goal of maximizing shareholder profits or the value of its assets.
For ex., in corporations, you wouldn't . Elon, you're the CEO of a corporation. Can you imagine this happening at Tesla?
For ex., in corporations, you wouldn't . Elon, you're the CEO of a corporation. Can you imagine this happening at Tesla?
@Rothmus Those who are opposed to corporations and favor government do not realize that government is simply the largest, most monopolistic corporation of all and it has a monopoly on violence.
5
5
15
634
Bohumilo retweeted
Commies think you can benefit society ONLY if you give things away for free. This is deeply wrong for two reasons:
1) It's unsustainable. You can give something away once, but you can sell it multiple times because you can once again obtain the resources needed for production. our production if you're good, sell to many more people, make them happy, too, improve your products, etc.
2) Even if you can somehow force people to give you resources for free (including making them give you their labor/work for free), without prices you can't know whether you're making people better off at all. You're transforming a bunch of stuff A into a bunch of stuff B. Is A worth less than B? Did you create or destroy value? Hard to tell. But with prices, it's easy: just see whether you're making a profit or a loss.
These two things—the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem—are why socialism failed.
1) It's unsustainable. You can give something away once, but you can sell it multiple times because you can once again obtain the resources needed for production. our production if you're good, sell to many more people, make them happy, too, improve your products, etc.
2) Even if you can somehow force people to give you resources for free (including making them give you their labor/work for free), without prices you can't know whether you're making people better off at all. You're transforming a bunch of stuff A into a bunch of stuff B. Is A worth less than B? Did you create or destroy value? Hard to tell. But with prices, it's easy: just see whether you're making a profit or a loss.
These two things—the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem—are why socialism failed.
@bohumilo @spencerpratt Oh! I didn't know he was giving all that away!
I stand corrected! I'll take a free douche mobile please!
2
2
15
781
Bohumilo retweeted
@"YES to creating millions of jobs by moving our energy system away from fossil fuels."
This is literally what Professor @JesusFerna7026 calls "the worst economic argument ever".
This is literally what Professor @JesusFerna7026 calls "the worst economic argument ever".
Climate change killed 32,000+ people in Europe this summer.
Trump believes this crisis is a "hoax." Republicans in Congress are following their "Great Leader.”
NO to Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. YES to creating millions of jobs by moving our energy system away from fossil fuels.
0
1
6
476
Bohumilo retweeted
It wasn't climate change, but communism that killed 32,000+ people in Europe, sacrificing them on the altar of the green religion by not letting them turn on their air conditioning. In other words YOU killed them.
Americans dealt with "climate change" very easily.
Americans dealt with "climate change" very easily.
Climate change killed 32,000+ people in Europe this summer.
Trump believes this crisis is a "hoax." Republicans in Congress are following their "Great Leader.”
NO to Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. YES to creating millions of jobs by moving our energy system away from fossil fuels.
1
7
49
746
Bohumilo retweeted
@“Billionaires should not exist, we can't afford them.”
No, we cannot afford to live WITHOUT them. They are the most socially productive people in our society. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that technology producers capture only a small share of reate—roughly 2%—with the rest going to consumers as surplus.
That means that, for ex., Elon Musk has produced $50 trillion in total value for society!!!
That is why there is a linear, one-for-one correlation between the number of billionaires per capita and how rich a society is. (Each 10% increase in GDP per capita is associated with about 11% more billionaires per capita)
This was made by Claude:
No, we cannot afford to live WITHOUT them. They are the most socially productive people in our society. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that technology producers capture only a small share of reate—roughly 2%—with the rest going to consumers as surplus.
That means that, for ex., Elon Musk has produced $50 trillion in total value for society!!!
That is why there is a linear, one-for-one correlation between the number of billionaires per capita and how rich a society is. (Each 10% increase in GDP per capita is associated with about 11% more billionaires per capita)
This was made by Claude:
Jennifer Welch launches a furious attack on Elon Musk, accusing the billionaire of benefiting from taxpayer money while criticizing other Americans as lazy.
She also calls for billionaires to stop existing altogether.
1
7
40
2,414
Bohumilo retweeted
The essence of socialism. 👇
It was never a movement of workers and the poor, but a product of the diseased power lust and envy of old money, the educated “progressive intelligentsia” toward people who, through entrepreneurship, have become more successful and wealthier than y producing economic goods for mass consumption by the broadest layers of society (making THEIR life better), who are precisely the greatest victims of attacks on capitalism, the free market, and free civilization in general.
The term “progressive intelligentsia” (from Yugoslav self-managment) or (in Marxism-Leninism) the “vanguard of the working class”, was coined precisely when it became clear that workers and peasants were neither interested in nor had the time to attend plenary sessions where papers on Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach were read and discussions were held on how to “ease the birth pangs of history” etc.
Concepts such as “the poor,” “the proletariat,” “the working class,” or today “women,” “LGBTQH+” (the H is for Hamas), “people of color,” etc., are political abstractions that do not refer to real people. Just as:
- Lenin (or Jeremy Corbyn), who never in his life entered a factory or hammered a nail, is a worker, or
- BLM protests are whiter than KKK gatherings, or
- Hamas male terrorists who throw gay people off rooftops are women and LGBT...
So, too, the people who vote for raising the minimum wage, abolishing the police and standardised tests and advanced math in public schools, and freezing rents are people who will NOT lose their jobs (or be unable to get a job at all) because of the minimum wage; who live in expensive neighborhoods with little crime and have private security; and who are not single mothers who will be ghettoized in public housing projects (because of a lack of housing) where children grow up without fathers and childhood looks like an excursion etc.
It was never a movement of workers and the poor, but a product of the diseased power lust and envy of old money, the educated “progressive intelligentsia” toward people who, through entrepreneurship, have become more successful and wealthier than y producing economic goods for mass consumption by the broadest layers of society (making THEIR life better), who are precisely the greatest victims of attacks on capitalism, the free market, and free civilization in general.
The term “progressive intelligentsia” (from Yugoslav self-managment) or (in Marxism-Leninism) the “vanguard of the working class”, was coined precisely when it became clear that workers and peasants were neither interested in nor had the time to attend plenary sessions where papers on Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach were read and discussions were held on how to “ease the birth pangs of history” etc.
Concepts such as “the poor,” “the proletariat,” “the working class,” or today “women,” “LGBTQH+” (the H is for Hamas), “people of color,” etc., are political abstractions that do not refer to real people. Just as:
- Lenin (or Jeremy Corbyn), who never in his life entered a factory or hammered a nail, is a worker, or
- BLM protests are whiter than KKK gatherings, or
- Hamas male terrorists who throw gay people off rooftops are women and LGBT...
So, too, the people who vote for raising the minimum wage, abolishing the police and standardised tests and advanced math in public schools, and freezing rents are people who will NOT lose their jobs (or be unable to get a job at all) because of the minimum wage; who live in expensive neighborhoods with little crime and have private security; and who are not single mothers who will be ghettoized in public housing projects (because of a lack of housing) where children grow up without fathers and childhood looks like an excursion etc.
“We’re starving”
> 2000 euro Bottega bag
0
2
20
1,384
Commies think you can benefit society ONLY if you give things away for free. This is deeply wrong for two reasons:
1) It's unsustainable. You can give something away once, but you can sell it multiple times because you can once again obtain the resources needed for production. our production if you're good, sell to many more people, make them happy, too, improve your products, etc.
2) Even if you can somehow force people to give you resources for free (including making them give you their labor/work for free), without prices you can't know whether you're making people better off at all. You're transforming a bunch of stuff A into a bunch of stuff B. Is A worth less than B? Did you create or destroy value? Hard to tell. But with prices, it's easy: just see whether you're making a profit or a loss.
These two things—the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem—are why socialism failed.
1) It's unsustainable. You can give something away once, but you can sell it multiple times because you can once again obtain the resources needed for production. our production if you're good, sell to many more people, make them happy, too, improve your products, etc.
2) Even if you can somehow force people to give you resources for free (including making them give you their labor/work for free), without prices you can't know whether you're making people better off at all. You're transforming a bunch of stuff A into a bunch of stuff B. Is A worth less than B? Did you create or destroy value? Hard to tell. But with prices, it's easy: just see whether you're making a profit or a loss.
These two things—the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem—are why socialism failed.
@bohumilo @spencerpratt Oh! I didn't know he was giving all that away!
I stand corrected! I'll take a free douche mobile please!
2
2
15
781
@“Billionaires should not exist, we can't afford them.”
No, we cannot afford to live WITHOUT them. They are the most socially productive people in our society. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that technology producers capture only a small share of reate—roughly 2%—with the rest going to consumers as surplus.
That means that, for ex., Elon Musk has produced $50 trillion in total value for society!!!
That is why there is a linear, one-for-one correlation between the number of billionaires per capita and how rich a society is. (Each 10% increase in GDP per capita is associated with about 11% more billionaires per capita)
This was made by Claude:
No, we cannot afford to live WITHOUT them. They are the most socially productive people in our society. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that technology producers capture only a small share of reate—roughly 2%—with the rest going to consumers as surplus.
That means that, for ex., Elon Musk has produced $50 trillion in total value for society!!!
That is why there is a linear, one-for-one correlation between the number of billionaires per capita and how rich a society is. (Each 10% increase in GDP per capita is associated with about 11% more billionaires per capita)
This was made by Claude:
Jennifer Welch launches a furious attack on Elon Musk, accusing the billionaire of benefiting from taxpayer money while criticizing other Americans as lazy.
She also calls for billionaires to stop existing altogether.
1
7
40
2,414
Bohumilo retweeted
Somebody should tell the pope
@“Billionaires should not exist, we can't afford them.”
No, we cannot afford to live WITHOUT them. They are the most socially productive people in our society. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that technology producers capture only a small share of reate—roughly 2%—with the rest going to consumers as surplus.
That means that, for ex., Elon Musk has produced $50 trillion in total value for society!!!
That is why there is a linear, one-for-one correlation between the number of billionaires per capita and how rich a society is. (Each 10% increase in GDP per capita is associated with about 11% more billionaires per capita)
This was made by Claude:
1
1
1
121
@"YES to creating millions of jobs by moving our energy system away from fossil fuels."
This is literally what Professor @JesusFerna7026 calls "the worst economic argument ever".
This is literally what Professor @JesusFerna7026 calls "the worst economic argument ever".
Climate change killed 32,000+ people in Europe this summer.
Trump believes this crisis is a "hoax." Republicans in Congress are following their "Great Leader.”
NO to Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. YES to creating millions of jobs by moving our energy system away from fossil fuels.
0
1
6
476