Pinned Tweet
When you have 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 and salaries but also the various benefits and social transfers they receive, minus taxes👇
Svaka čast studentima, potluno neverovatan rezultat. Dve stvari:
1) U Srbiji se 25 godina kuka kako je problem u tome što nije bilo 6. Oktobra. Danas je 26. Oktobar. I proći će brzo.
2) Pošto nemate politiku i ideologiju - i to je dobro - evo moj predlog: Pokušajte da maksimizijete ekonomski rast! Neka to bude brusilica koja će rubiti/oblikovati politike i metar koji će ih meriti.
Svi dobri društveni autkami koje želite da postignete su u korelaciji sa dohotkom po glavi stanovnoka 90%-99%. To znači da je 99% stanja po bilo kom pitanju - npr. u zdravstvu, ili ekologiji, ili stanje sa siromštvom ili bilo šta drugo - objašnjivo dohotkom (ili GDPem, svejedno) p.c.. Znači ako se vi, recimo, bavite direktno popravljanjem zdravstva a ne rastom ekonomije, vi se bavite onim restom, onim 1% problema. (pogledajte citirani članak 👇)
I ma kako genijalno i efikasno rešenje, recimo, za alokaciju zdravstvenih usluga da neko iznadje, porast rasta (drugi izvod) ekonomije od recimo 0.5% će ga pojesti za par godina.
Srećno! @studentblokade
If you run a regression on the headcount of poverty in a country against the income per capita, the correlation is 0.99. In other words, if your income per capita is high, nobody is "struggling to afford food".
And it holds true not just for food but for every basic necessity.
In this paper they build many different plausible composite indexes of "basics" (health, nutrition, water/sanitation, housing, education, poverty, environment, you name it...) — using several independent construction methods, and show they all end up strongly tied to GDP per capita.
No matter how you choose which indicators count as basic or how you weight them, you can't escape a strong BOTH necessary AND sufficient link to GDP /capita.
GDP is all you need!
Bohumilo retweeted
We basically have scientific proof here that pro-market policies are better for an economy.
To believe in leftist economics is like the closest thing we have to flat earthism in the social sciences.
🇧🇷Brazil runoff night, and the perp is trading the odds in real time.
Since 4pm ET, @Kalshi's Bolsonaro contract went 80% → 10%, and the @HyperliquidX Brazil ETF perpetual went 46.30 → 40.46, down 12.6% from its high and now 5% below EWZ's Friday close of 42.59.
The last leg, 42.58 to 40.46, took about a minute. EWZ opens Monday into a market that already repriced it.
Track live on @TheTerminal
Bohumilo retweeted
Brazil dodged a bullet this night!
>Stock market crashes 20~%
>Real Dollar value -10~%
>Lula promises to regulate STRONGLY social media
>Lula promises to persecute political opponents
Horay we defeated fascism.
Bohumilo retweeted
There is a fundamental asymmetry here. Communists are always on the attack, their ideology is taking stuff from people who aren't communists—which obviously has greater evolutionary fitness, though it's terrible for governing—and the best anti-communists can hope for is to hold their own against entropy.
Why not propose a policy where we tax leftists? If you support the left, we're going to take away your stuff. That's what they're doing.
Bohumilo retweeted
You: provide uncontroversial facts about the greatness of Elon Musk.
Communist: dick, cock, lick, k-hole, suck, anus, delicious dick, suck, cock, licking, sucking, dick, dick, suck... 🤣
Bohumilo retweeted
We can just tell the Brazilian army they don’t need to recognize the election results. Or at least, can suspend and investigate.
This is the opposite of imperialism. Yanqui go home. We trust Brazil to govern itself. As JQ Adams put it: the government de facto is de jure for us
There is a fundamental asymmetry here. Communists are always on the attack, their ideology is taking stuff from people who aren't communists—which obviously has greater evolutionary fitness, though it's terrible for governing—and the best anti-communists can hope for is to hold their own against entropy.
Why not propose a policy where we tax leftists? If you support the left, we're going to take away your stuff. That's what they're doing.
Bohumilo retweeted
The idea that Pinochet, Mussolini, and Franco, who killed under 1% of their countrymen after they took power, were worse than Pol Pot, who murdered about 25% of his, is beyond absurd.
And Pinochet probably did more good than harm overall. Pol Pot, on the other hand, destroyed almost everything he touched. His per capita domestic civilian death toll was higher than everyone on this list.
Top 20 Worst Dictators in History
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Locations of Uganda and Ethiopia are switched even though the leaders are correct share.google/bTcu2SAk3Z5NYL…
Bohumilo retweeted
The only common thread in leftist policies is that, always and everywhere, they make the left feel stronger.
This is why free speech is a leftist policy when the left is out of power, and a rightist policy when the left is in power. Contradiction? No contradiction at all
Bohumilo retweeted
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.
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 it comes to meeting basic 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.
Bohumilo retweeted
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 see phenomena like this. Elon, you're the CEO of a corporation. Can you imagine this happening at Tesla?
