白痴左派永远相信政府而不是自由市场🤮
Seulement 1% des américains sont payés au salaire minimum contre 13% pour les salariés français.
Pourquoi les patrons américains paient mieux que le salaire minimum et pourquoi les salariés américains sont parmi les mieux payés au monde?
Question niveau impossible pour le gauchiste moyen qui pense que sans la protection de l'Etat, les patrons les paieraient à peine un salaire de subsistance.
La réponse est simple.
Les patrons sont en compétition pour attirer et garder leurs employés.
Si vous payez au salaire minimum aux Etats-Unis, personne ne veut travailler pour vous, même pour les emplois nécessitant une faible qualification.
Attirer un bon ingénieur coûte 2 à 3x plus cher cotisations patronales comprises aux États-Unis qu'en France.
Plus la productivité moyenne d'un pays est élevée, plus le salaire moyen augmente car les patrons sont en moyenne prêts à investir plus en travail pour produire de la richesse.
On ne décrète pas d'augmenter les salaires.
Il faut améliorer l'économie dans son ensemble et les salaires suivent ensuite.
6
又一头邪恶的猪！🐷
Thomas Piketty built a global reputation on a single, seductive claim: capital accumulates faster than the economy grows, causing wealth to concentrate permanently at the top, and only aggressive redistribution fixes this.
His 2013 book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" sold over three million copies. Politicians treated it like scripture. But the entire foundation is rotten.
Piketty's central formula, r > g (the return on capital exceeds economic growth), relies on projecting historical capital returns forward indefinitely. This ignores capital consumption, entrepreneurial loss, and the constant destruction of old fortunes through bad investments, generational spending, and market competition. Andrew Carnegie's grandchildren did not control U.S. Steel. Vanderbilt money scattered within two generations. Markets punish miscalculation without mercy, so the aristocratic permanence Piketty fears keeps failing to materialize.
Somehow, that isn't even the most intellectually dishonest part of the book. Piketty treats capital as a static pool sitting on top of society, extracting rent from you while doing nothing useful. Capital is deferred consumption channeled into productive tools, which is why real wages in market economies rise alongside capital accumulation, not despite it. Every factory, every server farm, every distribution network that employs you and cheapens the goods you buy exists because someone saved instead of spent.
His proposed solution? A global wealth tax reaching up to 80 percent on high incomes, requiring an international enforcement apparatus with no exit option for capital.
Yet another manufactured crisis, built on dishonest numbers, and the solution is always to give globalists more of your hard-earned money.
6
MMT是万恶之源
In diesem Ausschnitt sagt @saifedean zwei MMT-„Ökonomen” ins Gesicht, wofür Zentralbanken wirklich da sind.
Seit über hundert Jahren haben sie im Grunde nur eine Aufgabe: den Wert des Geldes Stück für Stück zu zerstören, damit die Cantillionäre immer reicher werden, während die Unterschicht immer weiter verarmt.
Damit das niemand hinterfragt, bezahlen sie genau die Ökonomen, die dieses System schönreden. Sie sitzen an den Universitäten, indoktrinieren Studierende und sogenannte „Gebildete” und erzählen ihnen, die Druckerpresse würde ihnen helfen. So wächst eine Generation heran, die ihre eigene Enteignung auch noch verteidigt.
Und wenn sie dann versprechen, mit den richtigen Leuten an der Macht werde das Geld endlich gerecht verteilt, ist das keine Lösung, sondern nur die nächste Rechtfertigung für Diebstahl. Armut und Wohnungsnot löst man nicht mit besseren Dieben. Man löst sie, indem man Eigentum anerkennt und freien Handel zulässt.
Gelddrucken ist Sklaverei, und die Sklaven verteidigen die Sklaventreiber.
7
有趣😅
Milton Friedman on Mises & Ayn Rand:
“Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand were remarkable individuals and have made great contributions, but both of them had one defect.”
“They were, from my point of view, intolerant. They were not willing to listen to ideas that didn’t conform to their own. They demanded that people be disciples, not simply learners.”
11
马甲 retweeted
Murray Rothbard spent two volumes and over 1,500 pages doing what mainstream economics departments refuse to do: tracing the intellectual lineage of economic thought without flattering the victors.
The result, published posthumously in 1995, is the most thorough and unapologetic history of economic ideas ever written. Rothbard tears into the standard narrative that economics began with Adam Smith and improved steadily until John Maynard Keynes saved civilization. That story is mythology.
The Scholastic thinkers of 14th and 15th century Spain, particularly the School of Salamanca, worked out subjective value theory, the nature of price, and the basics of sound money centuries before Smith touched a quill. Juan de Mariana, writing in 1609, condemned currency debasement as theft by the Crown. He was right then. Governments still do it, and you still pay for it every time your grocery bill climbs faster than your wages.
Smith himself takes serious damage in Rothbard's account. Rather than a heroic founder, Smith appears as a step backward in certain respects, introducing the labor theory of value and muddying the subjective insights his predecessors had already clarified. Ricardo hardened that confusion into doctrine, and Marx ran with it to its logical and catastrophic endpoint.
The rehabilitation extends to figures the mainstream barely mentions. Richard Cantillon, writing around 1730, produced a more sophisticated monetary analysis than most 20th-century textbooks contain. He traced how new money enters an economy at specific points, enriching those closest to the source before prices rise across the board. The Cantillon effect explains why quantitative easing fattened Wall Street balance sheets while your purchasing power shrank after 2008 and again after the Federal Reserve's 2020 and 2021 interventions.
Rothbard also prosecutes the myth of Adam Smith's originality. The "invisible hand" gets far less analytical weight in the actual Wealth of Nations than the metaphor's fame implies. Rothbard shows that the core insights attributed to Smith circulated widely in France and Spain decades earlier. Credit went to Smith partly because he wrote in English and partly because intellectual history rewards bold synthesizers over quiet pioneers.
Rothbard treats the history of thought as a battleground where good ideas can lose and bad ideas can dominate for a century before collapsing under their own contradictions. Mercantilism dominated European policy for 200 years despite being wrong in its basic premises about wealth. Keynesianism captured every major finance ministry by 1970 and produced a decade of stagflation that the model said was impossible.
Rothbard's history should be viewed as a warning about which bad ideas are dominating right now.
猴子应该被关在笼子里，锁上铁链度过一生。
OMG. Video reportedly captured on a Mahoning Valley Community Schools bus in Ohio shows a male student BRUTALLY attacking a female student as others laugh and do nothing.
The bus driver and the aide also allegedly did NOT intervene to stop the attack.
School officials also allegedly did not contact the female student's parents, and she was not seen by the nurse.
We reached out to the school for comment, but they did not respond.
4
傻逼们的民主是灾难
A 24-year-old brat tells Caleb Hammer the rich should be taxed “to the max.”
He asks her what that means.
And when she answers, he can’t believe this person votes.
HAMMER: “You’ve never lived in the real world.”
GRACE: “I haven’t. I can admit that. But like, what if there was a world that we lived in and everybody had money and everybody was able to live comfortably?”
HAMMER: “That’s not the world we live in.”
GRACE: “Reality sucks. Capitalism is bad. I don’t like it.”
HAMMER: “Yeah, really easy for someone to say that grew up in a really nice house in one of the best school districts in Texas.”
“Who has the rent f*cking paid for. That is able to go to Europe on a whim with their sister.”
“You never got to actually see what happens when you put in the work and get benefits and actually have a little bit of responsibility and actually f*cking build something or do anything.”
GRACE: “But the people who you should be going after are the people in the top something percent that like hoard all the world’s wealth. Like go after those people. Those people need to be taxed to the f*cking max.”
HAMMER: “What does that even look like to you? You probably don’t even know what that looks like. What does that look like? How do you tax someone to the max?”
GRACE: “I’m not sure.”
HAMMER: “Oh! Interesting. This person’s voting.”
GRACE: “Yes, I am. And I already know who I’m voting for.”
HAMMER: “And you literally can’t describe a tax.”
What’s scary is her vote counts the same as yours.
CONTEXT: The top 1% of earners already pay 38.4% of all federal income taxes, according to the latest IRS data (tax year 2023). That’s $823,000,000,000.
The bottom half of taxpayers pay just 3.3%.
8
最没有的就是这些狗屁不通的人文知识分子！他们就是专门生产文字垃圾的废物。
Марксизм это изложенные псевдонаучным языком представления о жизни неграмотного крестьянина, занятого натуральным хозяйством.
Крестьянин, занятый натуральным хозяйством, почти ничего не покупает и не продает. У него нет на это средств, и в экономике он почти не участвует. При этом в городе живут люди, которые лучше едят и одеваются. Очевидно, они едят украденный у крестьянина хлеб, ведь сами они не пашут и не сеют. Крестьянину от этих людей никакой пользы, и он их ненавидит, периодически устраивая крестьянские восстания. Марксизм идеально подошёл бы этим людям, именно поэтому социализм имел успех только в отсталых странах, где ещё сохранялось натуральное хозяйство – Россия, Китай и прочая Африка. Марксизм не победил в странах развитого капитализма, как это предсказывал Маркс, потому что рабочие там уже не были занятыми натуральным хозяйством неграмотными крестьянами.
Парадокс популярности марксизма в современном мире заключается в том, что в самых развитых странах появился новый класс пролетариев, аналогичных неграмотным крестьянам 16 века – городская интеллигенция. Они живут на подачки государства и ничего не продают, потому что никто в здравом уме не платит за статьи о гендерном равенстве. Они ненавидят всех, у кого больше денег ©
5
马甲 retweeted
The Fed manufactures every boom, then oversees the bust.
Look at the dot-com bubble. Between 1995 and 2000, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan expanded M2 money supply by 40 percent. That cheap credit had to go somewhere. It flooded into the NASDAQ, inflating valuations of companies with no earnings, no revenue model, and sometimes no actual product. Pets(.)com burned through $300 million and collapsed within a year of its 2000 IPO. Webvan raised $375 million and went bankrupt in 2001. This is the rational response to irrational money.
Greenspan delivered his famous "irrational exuberance" speech in December 1996, four years before the crash. He saw the bubble. Then he inflated it anyway, cutting the federal funds rate to 4.75 percent in 1998 after the Russian default crisis and Long-Term Capital Management implosion. Investors took that signal and leveraged into equities harder. NASDAQ peaked at 5,048 on March 10, 2000, then fell 78 percent over the next 30 months, destroying $5 trillion in household wealth. People watched their retirement accounts crater while Greenspan pivoted to explaining why nobody could have seen it coming.
Ludwig von Mises described the mechanism in his business cycle theory: artificially low interest rates misdirect capital into projects that only pencil out at that fake price of money. The moment the Fed tightens or the market corrects rates upward, malinvestment collapses. Every dot-com bonfire was a malinvestment.
Entrepreneurs, engineers, and retail investors absorbed the losses. Greenspan absorbed none. He collected his salary, retired in 2006, and published a memoir. The institution that created the catastrophe survived it completely intact, ready to run the same cycle again with mortgage-backed securities.
Which, of course, it did.
马甲 retweeted
No, el consumo no genera riqueza. De hecho, el consumo destruye riqueza.
Consumir es agotar bienes que ya fueron producidos.
La riqueza viene de producir, y para producir es necesario capital, o sea, ahorro previo que alguien dejó de consumir.
Si consumir más nos enriqueciera, Argentina sería potencia mundial porque llevamos unos 50 años o más estimulando la demanda.
El salario no es algún que se fija en base a la bondad de un empresario.
Tiende al valor descontado del producto marginal del trabajador.
O sea, si le pagás por encima de lo que ese trabajador aporta, ese puesto te termina dando pérdidas y desaparece.
Si el aumento viene mediante el Estado a través de una violación de los derechos de propiedad, el resultado es desempleo, sobre todo de los menos productivos.
Lo que el empleado gasta de más es lo que el empresario deja de ahorrar, invertir o gastar.
Sin un aumento real de la productividad.
Es decir, en la práctica no esta apareciendo demanda nueva sino que la misma demanda esta cambiando de bolsillo.
Y si sale de la inversión, a futuro baja la productividad, y con ella el salario real de los trabajadores.
La tontería de que el trabajador mejor pago rinde más ya lo desarmó Rothbard en MES, si fuera cierto, los empresarios, que buscan ganancias, subirían los salarios por su cuenta para quedarse con ese aumento de productividad.
Es decir, no sería necesario que nadie venga y se los imponga por la fuerza (lo que constituye una violación de los derechos de propeidad).
Los salarios reales suben de verdad por una sola vía y es más capital por trabajador.
Eso pide ahorro e inversión, o sea, consumir menos hoy.
Por eso Bastos tiene su icónica frase de Capitalismo, ahoro y trabajo duru.
También lo menciona explicitamente Rothbard en MES, la idea de que estimular el consumo cura la economía es falsa, y lo cierto es lo contrario.
Primero se produce y después se consume.
这个傻子在模仿《发条橙》吗？
🚨 NOW: DERANGED LEFTIST has been ARRESTED after attacking a TPUSA patriot and ripping down the American flag at University of Texas Tyler
He LOOKS and SOUNDS EXACTLY as you'd expect
We need to bring back insane asylums!
Conservatives are under attack and it's because the left keeps JUSTIFYING it.
12
马甲 retweeted
Patents are government-granted monopolies. If you strip away the euphemism, the state forbids competitors from using an idea, backed by courts and injunctions.
The Wright brothers prove what happens when that monopoly metastasizes. Orville and Wilbur secured U.S. Patent 821,393 in 1906, covering their lateral control system. Rather than compete on engineering, they spent the next decade suing Glenn Curtiss and every other American aviation pioneer who dared improve on their design. Curtiss, who built superior aircraft, had to spend his time fighting injunctions instead of building planes. The U.S. aviation industry largely froze while litigation dragged through courts.
Europe had no such paralysis. French, German, and British manufacturers iterated freely, competed aggressively, and by the time World War One broke out in 1914, European aviation had lapped America. The U.S. military scrambled to field combat aircraft and found its domestic industry strangled. The government ultimately forced a cross-licensing agreement in 1917 through the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, dismantling the very monopoly Washington had granted eight years earlier. The state created the problem, then congratulated itself for solving it.
This is the standard story patents tell. The incentive argument runs like this: without patent protection, inventors will not invest in research because competitors will copy their work. The claim sounds intuitive, but the math rarely supports it. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on patent litigation and regulatory lobbying than many spend on actual drug discovery. Curtiss needed customers and competitive pressure to motivate him, which the Wright litigation denied him.
Progress compounds through imitation, recombination, and rivalry. Prices fall, quality rises, and you benefit directly when inventors race each other rather than race to the courthouse. Every year a patent holds a superior technology off the market is a year you pay more for worse outcomes.
社会财富不可能因政府的行政命令产生，只能靠自由市场创造。左派始终倾向于政府而不是市场，他们全是猪！
Hay un sector infantilizado de la población que cree que la mejora en la calidad de vida es una cuestión que llega por ley y no por los avances tecnológicos y la mejora de la productividad. Siguen creyendo en un mundo de buenos y malos, de pobres y ricos. Niegan la ley de la oferta y la demanda, niegan la importancia de los incentivos y niegan la propia historia de la humanidad.
Ninguno de los llamados “avances sociales” de la historia llegaron como consecuencia de cambios legislativos. Más bien al revés: los cambios legislativos fueron la consecuencia de avances que ya habían llegado en la práctica.
Solo una mente infantil puede creer que, cambiando leyes, puedes conseguir trabajar menos y ganar más en términos reales. Solo una mente infantilizada puede creer que un cambio de ley sobre un aspecto específico de la economía solo afecta a ese aspecto específico y mantiene inalterados los demás.
Es realmente triste que más de un siglo después de la revolución bolchevique sigan funcionando los mismos mantras. Y es que, lamentablemente, no hay nada como decirle a la gente lo que quiere oír: que la culpa es de los “privilegiados” y no de ellos. Que castigando a esos privilegiados ellos vivirán mejor.
La realidad es que sólo quien se esfuerza progresa. Es duro, es impopular, pero es la realidad. Nadie regala nada, no hay trucos que van a hacer que mejores tu vida sin esfuerzo. El Ozempic económico no existe; o tiene unos efectos secundarios tan devastadores a medio plazo que nadie en su sano juicio lo recetaría.
10
邪恶的白左知识分子
Top 20 des sorties les plus abjectes de l'intelligentsia de gauche française. Ceux qui nous ont fait la morale pendant cinquante ans.
Aragon, 1931. Il écrit un poème à la gloire de la Guépéou, la police politique de Staline. La machine qui remplira le Goulag.
Sartre, 1954, de retour d'URSS : « La liberté de critique est totale en URSS. » Pendant que les camps tournent à plein régime.
Sartre, 1961 : « Tout anticommuniste est un chien. » Le ton du débat intellectuel français pour trente ans.
Simone de Beauvoir, 1957, La Longue Marche. Un portrait enchanté de la Chine de Mao, juste avant le Grand Bond en avant et ses dizaines de millions de morts de faim.
Paul Éluard, 1950. André Breton lui demande d'intervenir pour leur ami Záviš Kalandra, condamné à mort dans un procès stalinien à Prague. Éluard refuse publiquement. Kalandra est pendu.
Philippe Sollers et la revue Tel Quel, 1974. Voyage en Chine en pleine Révolution culturelle, retour en extase maoïste.
Sartre, préface des Damnés de la terre, 1961. Abattre un Européen, explique-t-il, c'est faire d'une pierre deux coups : un oppresseur et un opprimé disparaissent, il reste un homme mort et un homme libre.
Sartre, 1972, après la prise d'otages des JO de Munich et le massacre des athlètes israéliens : le terrorisme serait la seule arme des opprimés.
Sartre, 1974, rend visite à Andreas Baader en prison. Jean Genet, en 1977, publie dans Le Monde un texte de soutien à la Fraction Armée rouge.
Sartre, 1973, interview à Actuel : un régime révolutionnaire doit se débarrasser de ceux qui le menacent, et il ne voit pas d'autre moyen que la mort.
Alain Badiou, Le Monde, janvier 1979 : « Kampuchéa vaincra ! » Un texte de soutien aux Khmers rouges, qui viennent d'exterminer près d'un quart de la population cambodgienne.
Michel Foucault, 1978. Il part en Iran et s'enthousiasme dans la presse italienne pour la « spiritualité politique » de la révolution de Khomeini.
René Schérer, L'Émile perverti, 1974. Un philosophe de Paris VIII théorise la « libération » sexuelle de l'enfant contre l'éducation.
Schérer et Guy Hocquenghem, Co-ire, 1976. Une revue entière consacrée à l'enfant « désirant ». Publiée, diffusée, discutée comme de la pensée sérieuse.
Gabriel Matzneff, Les Moins de seize ans, 1974. Publié par un grand éditeur, chroniqué, célébré. En 1990 chez Pivot, il raconte, le plateau rit. Seule Denise Bombardier ose se lever.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Le Grand Bazar, 1975, puis à Apostrophes en 1982. Il décrit des jeux sexuels avec des enfants de crèche. Il dira plus tard que c'était de la provocation et que rien n'a eu lieu. Personne sur le plateau ne bronche.
Foucault, 1978, sur France Culture, dans un débat intitulé « La loi de la pudeur ». Il plaide contre la majorité sexuelle et refuse de présumer qu'un enfant ne peut pas consentir.
Mai 1977. Lettre ouverte à la commission de révision du Code pénal pour abroger les lois sur les relations sexuelles avec les moins de 15 ans. Signée notamment par Foucault, Deleuze, Barthes, Derrida, Althusser.
Janvier 1977. Le Monde, puis Libération, publient une tribune pour défendre trois hommes poursuivis pour relations sexuelles avec des mineurs de moins de 15 ans. Une soixantaine de signatures du gratin intellectuel de l'époque. Jack Lang, des décennies plus tard : « C'était une connerie. »
Libération, le journal cofondé par Sartre. Il ouvre ses colonnes aux militants pédophiles, publie des petites annonces d'adultes cherchant des enfants, et en 1979 une pétition pour défendre un homme arrêté pour des relations avec des fillettes de 6 à 12 ans.
Ces gens ont dirigé la vie intellectuelle française. Ils ont formé nos profs, écrit nos manuels, tenu nos rédactions. Et ils nous ont expliqué pendant cinquante ans où était le bien.
8
马甲 retweeted
The Weimar hyperinflation of 1923 wasn't just an economic crisis; it was the systematic destruction of Germany's middle class and the social order that held society together. When the government chose to finance its deficits by printing money rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, it unleashed a monetary catastrophe that would reshape German society forever.
By November 1923, it took 4.2 trillion marks to buy a single US dollar. Teachers, engineers, and civil servants who had saved their entire lives watched their nest eggs become worthless overnight. A lifetime of prudent saving couldn't buy a loaf of bread, while speculators and debtors who had borrowed heavily found their debts evaporated by inflation.
The psychological trauma went far deeper than the economic devastation. The German middle class had built their identity around thrift, hard work, and delayed gratification. Values that hyperinflation made not just useless but actively harmful. Those who had played by the rules were punished, while those who abandoned fiscal responsibility were rewarded.
This wasn't merely monetary policy gone wrong, it was the foundation for the political extremism that would follow. When money loses meaning, society loses its anchor, and people become desperate enough to embrace radical solutions. The lesson remains: sound money isn't just about economics, it's about preserving the social fabric itself.
西方的白左是邪恶的源头！一定要牢记这一点。
Pol Pot. This piece of shit killed an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979, somewhere between 25 and 33 percent of the entire population. He did this by applying an ideology to its logical conclusion. Ideology always has a conclusion; socialism's conclusion is death.
The Khmer Rouge abolished money in 1975. Completely. Banks closed. Markets dissolved. Currency became contraband. They then abolished private property, forcibly relocated urban populations to collective farms, and set central planners the task of organizing rice production for the entire nation. The result was predictable: mass starvation beside the rice fields. Planners cannot coordinate production without prices. Prices require private property and voluntary exchange.
Pol Pot studied in Paris during the 1950s, absorbing French Communist Party doctrine and Maoist agrarianism. Western universities provided the intellectual scaffolding for the killing fields. Coercion requires enforcers, tribunals, and eventually mass graves; Cambodia's are at Choeung Ek.
Every collectivist experiment reaches this same point, because central planners cannot solve what free exchange solves automatically every second of every day.
7
