Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • We are autarkic: petroleum independent

    We are autarkic: petroleum independent.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 23:25:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706449996747284897

    Reply addressees: @Memele1718212 @empireenjoyer10 @2020Blackstone

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706444220901515531

  • You’d have to be totally ignorant of even basic economics to even think such a r

    You’d have to be totally ignorant of even basic economics to even think such a ridiculous thing. But of course, the people who spread that nonsense are counting on the fact that you are ignorant of even basic economics -and most else for that matter.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 22:46:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706440136399954024

    Reply addressees: @MessiEra10_ @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706393636684845056

  • NO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE CANT INCREASE – OR SURVIVE —“Social security an

    NO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE CANT INCREASE – OR SURVIVE
    —“Social security and welfare could easily do what a “traditional” family (assuming the lone breadwinner is paid enough to thrive in an inflated economy) does if federal and state governments actually invested in those…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 15:55:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706336674341433850

    Reply addressees: @jstabastrdchild @schizarella

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706309128950304816

  • NO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE CANT INCREASE – OR SURVIVE —“Social security an

    NO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE CANT INCREASE – OR SURVIVE
    —“Social security and welfare could easily do what a “traditional” family (assuming the lone breadwinner is paid enough to thrive in an inflated economy) does if federal and state governments actually invested in those programs.”—

    That’s simply not true. It’s horrifically NOT true.
    Social Security: Roughly 23% of the federal budget.
    Medicare: Approximately 15% of the federal budget.
    Medicaid: Around 9% of the federal budget.
    Welfare: Around 2% of the federal budget.
    Adding these together, mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid consume approximately 49% of the federal budget. (Half of all taxes already go to these programs.)
    Add 9% for federal employees and contractors and you’re at 58%.

    Now, add that the deficit each year – meaning taxes not collected, and therefore money borrowed by the government – has recently varied from 22% before covid to 47% under covid.

    So at the low end, where:
    Mandatory Spending: 47% of the total federal budget
    Actual Revenue: 78% of the total federal budget
    So of the ‘real’ taxes collected, that means at least 60% of federal revenue goes to those categories of mandatory spending

    In other words, there is zero chance that these programs will survive into the future given demographic rates of reproduction and the quality “capabilities” of the populations we are immigrating. In other words, dropping our country’s IQ from 100 to 97 is already visible in effects, and we will shortly hit 95, which puts us in a second world instead of first world economy.

    We are entering a crisis today as world geoeconomics, geopolitics, and geostrategy equilibrate, ending our western institutional, cultural, scientific, technological, genetic, and demographic advantage.

    We will enter yet another crisis quite soon as the delay in reforming the benefits system to RESTORE dependence on the family for our poverty, health, and elder care, directly by the family, or indirectly through taxes on the productivity of the children when they mature.

    Because while y’all seem to think the government is rich, it’s not. It’s just another college kid running up credit cards without the job or income to pay them down, and while we can go bankrupt against consumer debt, when it comes to Benefits programs, the debt is to ourselves – so we lose either way.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 15:55:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706336674043576320

  • Easy. Incentives. How did the muslims convert everyone? Taxes. Not saying that’s

    Easy. Incentives. How did the muslims convert everyone? Taxes. Not saying that’s the idea but the point is that incentives are enough. And yes I’ve thought it all through but there is no piont in talking about fight club until it’s time for fight club so to speak.

    I think…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 01:02:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705387242624344071

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705383769304445167

  • That’s …. ridiculous. No you are not producing an equal product with equal tes

    That’s …. ridiculous. No you are not producing an equal product with equal testability with an equal outcome that producing equal consequences, and importantly equal externalities.

    In fact I am all but certain that if I sat your classes I would struggle to keep up with taking notes on your faults, and would produce at least one article per class that explained what you had misunderstood, misrepresented, and the consequential harms you had produced, just teaching something as trivial as literature.

    And I’m all but certain each argument would consist of something that hadn’t even occurred to you, because you lacked sufficient education in cognitive science, logic, economics, and law – and that’s without touching physics, – so you were in fact teaching ideology under cover of literature. Literature the profound meaning of which is almost certainly lost upon you – because if not you would easily explain how the message conveyed related the european group evolutionary strategy and how that strategy compared to the other surviving civilizations of the world.

    I know this because only someone who would make such a nonsense statement as your origional post, could do so if she was also teaching nonsense in her career, and practicing that nonsense in daily life – wholly unaware that it’s nothing but nonsense.

    Here is the important question: given we know there is zero durable value to everything other than the STEM+Law series, that warrants anything other than one year of study, (and even that among stem courses there are only two to four that require four years), and given that we know that education is a high cost substitute caused by nothing mre than the prohibition on IQ testing that’s all that employers require for hiring, and training by apprenticeship (doing) rather than the universally outdated nonsense they are taught in undergrad.

    And given that the endebtedness caused by wasting four years of income and career, four years of maximum intersexual relationship adaptability, delaying home ownership, delaying reproduction, and therefore producing the decline in reproduction cause almost entirely by childless women, who, because of that behavior, are not reproducing enough citizens to offset women’s consumption of seventy percdent of government services, nor ensuring there are is an economy to support them in old age, thus parasites on those that do produce families, and all while the present technolgical advancement will cause vast unemployment among white collar clericals causing what will now be called unskilled workers, whose income was only made possible for a brief period during the first three generations of democratized computing.

    Are you sure you even have the vaguest idea what you are talking about, and it’s consequences? Or are you another product of the postwar academy’s combination of the false promise of endless growth, the abandonment of responsibilty for the commons, the deprioritization of the family as capitalization between generations for the individual hyperconsumption of built up behavioral and physical capital without contributing to its replacement, and the mandatory indoctrination into social pseudoscience with the consequential devolutionary influencde not seen since the Christian destruction of the Roman ampire by the same means?

    Such prideful arrogance in such profound ignorance is revolting. You should never be permitted public speech, and even less so participating in the indoctrination of a generation, already the least competent, and most physically, emotionally and psychological unfit in our history.

    Fin.

    Reply addressees: @JessicaCalarco @epopppp


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-22 23:23:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705362287513448449

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704894737172627659

  • Lame attempt. Try harder. In a progressive tax system, instead of that money is

    Lame attempt. Try harder.
    In a progressive tax system, instead of that money is going to hedonistic consumption, women are forced to save that money so that over time, they interest and the principle accumulate sufficiently so that she is not a burden on the women who instead have born not only that burden but that of children, and through her children ensured the surplus to pay for her services.

    Reply addressees: @anderstegn


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-22 21:01:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705326369276612608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705283093651697730

  • Never happen. Population is collapsing so fast that starvation will return, and

    Never happen. Population is collapsing so fast that starvation will return, and economies will crash. That will do more than any savings we attempt. Worse quality of life is a direct function of energy per capita. Only solving the energy storage problem, and nuclear power will…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-21 04:20:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704712193650868415

    Reply addressees: @RichardJMurphy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704522842782461996

  • RT @cremieuxrecueil: This is a really interesting point: Almost all of the world

    RT @cremieuxrecueil: This is a really interesting point:

    Almost all of the world’s extreme poverty is about to be in Sub-Saharan Africa al…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-20 20:40:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704596482064556194

  • There is no value in mining asteroids for prescous metals which if done, would o

    There is no value in mining asteroids for prescous metals which if done, would only decrease the value of those metals via inflation of supply.

    There is lilttle other than radioactive material that is worth mining, and unfortunately that material isn’t concentrated in dense form, but in small parts per million.

    I had assumed that given Sol is a third or fourth generation star that there might be different elements of greater mass (energy) and density elsewhere in the universe, which would provide some promise of new sources of energy. But this appears to be either unlikely or irretreivable given the necessary density, temperature, and pressure.

    My understanding, admittedly uncertain at present, is the value of asteroid mining is limited to use by ships, very large ones, that want to avoid the costs of gravity well resources, given the poor weight to cost ratio of going up and down that well.

    Most of our science fiction and ambitions of the future are dependent upon finding something to power us safely with a far higher energy to weight and volume ratio than we are capable of producing today in any form.

    At present our hopes are on cold fusion, but while the math says it’s possible, my undersetanding of the physics that this math describes says not.

    Hence many of my criticisms of ‘mathiness’ in physics.

    Reply addressees: @hawkevick @radiofreenw


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-19 20:49:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704236302659387394

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704218263243145604