Jeg har oversat @HoppeQuotes's En kort historie om mennesket, der omhandler hvordan vi tog skridtene fra stenalder til landbrug, fra landbrug til industri og fra aristokrati til demokrati.
Kom til BogForum i weekenden og tag en snak med mig om bogen på C2-041.
Kom forbi vores stand på BogForum og sig hej!
Mød os på BogForum i Bella Centeret (C2-041) i weekenden!
Du kan møde mange af de dygtige forfattere og oversættere vi arbejder sammen med, bl.a. @larschristens og @societyguidebk!
Der er også mulighed for at købe vores bøger.
Se hele programmet her: program.bogforum.dk/bogforum…
Wealth taxes aren't about raising revenue. They're class warfare between the political and entrepreneurial classes.
The political class wants entrepreneurs to leave, eliminating rivals for power while also turning "the people" against them in the process.
this California wealth tax thing is just incredible.
so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time).
polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it).
there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate.
supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right?
well as it turns out, they did.
a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative.
proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave.
just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues.
but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion.
so when you add it all up you get:
+ $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated)
- $69b in present value of lost future income taxes
= - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax
of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time.
and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes.
[1]: nber.org/system/files/workin…
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Skal man altid følge loven – også når loven strider mod ens samvittighed?
@LarsAnders1620 gik fra politibetjent til anarkokapitalist og frihedsaktivist.
Vi taler om lovlighed, moral, Bitcoin og den personlige pris for at udfordre staten.
Links til episoden ⬇️
Our trust in our neighbors and strangers alike is one key to our pleasant quality of life in the north, but also our Achilles heel.
We must learn the limits of this mindset. Not everyone can be trusted, and those who cannot may capture our institutions.
I talked (=ranted) about the Nordic Puzzle: Scandinavia had all the preconditions for a thriving bitcoin usage... but somehow we fucked it?
@gladstein tells me it's financial privilege; remu says it's trust in authority/the system, which @rasmushansen says I shouldn't rejoice
Thank you @btchelevent for a great event!
I was invited to speak on Bitcoin adaption in the Nordics and we wrestled with the question on why Bitcoin adaption is stuffed. Is the quality of life too good? Is the trust in the system too high? What do you think?
See you in 2027!
On 22/9 in Tallinn, I’m hosting a fireside chat with Jake from @enogtyvedk and Peter from @SHOP21DK about their experiences building the Bitcoin community in Denmark.
We’ll talk about what has worked, what hasn’t, Bitcoin Copenhagen, books, Austrian economics, and adoption.
Link to event: meetup.com/mission-liberty-t…
Men konstante produktivitetsstigninger kræver et kontinuerligt højt niveau af menneskelig intelligens. Hvor og så længe et sådant højt niveau af intelligens mangler, må befolkningsvækst føre til lavere — og ikke højere — indkomster per indbygger.
— En kort historie om mennesket
The biggest Bitcoin Conference in the Nordics is @btchelevent and it is a great chance to meet other bitcoiners, learn deeply about Bitcoin and enjoy Helsinki!
I will be on a panel there, talking about how Bitcoin is holding up in Denmark.
I hope see you there!
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Hvordan argumenterer man for demokrati?
Argumenterne har flyttet sig over tid, og @liberaletanker har gennemgået demokratiets idéhistorie – fra Rousseaus almenvilje og den franske revolution til Hal Koch, Habermas og Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Links til episoden ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
EU vil gerne kalde det “beskyttelse”.
Men Chat Control handler i praksis om at scanne alles private beskeder.
I vores nye podcast-episode forklarer @NamelessCoder, hvorfor det er et angreb på kryptering, privatliv og helt almindelige menneskers frihed.
Links ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
IMPORTANT SECURITY UPDATE:
COLDCARD users who relied solely on device-generated randomness may be at risk from a security vulnerability that may steal your coins.
Users who followed best practices and generated their seed with 100 fair, independent, and private dice rolls are not considered at risk. 50+ rolls seems to also be safe.
If you generated your seed on a coldcard without 100 dice rolls, you should:
1. Generate a completely new seed on an unaffected device or airgapped computer.
2. Carefully record and verify the new backup.
3. Verify the wallet fingerprint and receiving address on the hardware wallet.
4. Send a small test transaction.
5. Confirm that everything works before moving the remaining funds.
Alternatively, and if any of this is confusing or feels uncertain, move your funds to an exchange custodian temporarily while you figure out how to set up a new seed safely.
Anyone uncertain about the firmware used, the number of dice rolls, or whether those rolls remained private should assume the seed may be affected and migrate.
The bug prevented the hardware random-number generator from contributing the intended amount of entropy during seed generation, substantially reducing the effective seed-search space. It is not a bug in bitcoin and it doesn't affect any wallets not using coldcard firmware.
A strong, unique BIP-39 passphrase adds an independent security barrier, but the protection depends entirely on the strength and secrecy of that passphrase. Even users with a strong passphrase should migrate to a newly generated seed as soon as practical.
Never enter your seed words or passphrase into a website, computer, phone, chatbot, or “recovery service.” Do not panic, but do not ignore this. Proceed calmly, verify every step, and act promptly. For further updates, rely on official Coinkite and COLDCARD sources:
• Security announcements: blog.coinkite.com/
• COLDCARD on X: @COLDCARDwallet
• Coinkite on X: @Coinkite
• Firmware releases and upgrade instructions: coldcard.com/docs/upgrade/
Be cautious of unsolicited messages, unofficial “recovery tools,” and accounts offering to help migrate your funds.
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Det er tid til at få styr på beskatningen af Bitcoin og krypto!
@LiberalAlliance har fremlagt et skatteudspil, der for danske forhold er så godt, som man tør håbe på.
Jacob fra @Bitcoinpolicydk gennemgår hele udspillet, der også giver en livsline til @theminimons.
Links ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Er Danmark en retsstat?
@theminimons handlede krypto, mens staten mente krypto ikke var skattepligtigt. Senere ændrede staten holdning — med tilbagevirkende kraft.
Nu skylder han 7 mio. kr., selvom han aldrig tjente pengene og han er i gæld resten af livet.
Links ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Skattereglerne for Bitcoin og krypto er uretfærdige, men selvom det har været velkendt i årevis, har Folketinget ikke gjort noget ved det.
Det vil @MadsStrange_ og @LiberalAlliance lave om på, og sammen med Jacob fra @Bitcoinpolicydk snakker vi fair skat på Bitcoin.
Links ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Er demokrati den ultimative styreform, eller er det vigtigste ikke hvem der bestemmer, men at reglerne er fair og at lever civiliseret med hinanden?
@UffeMerrild har været forbi podcasten hvor vi snakker om "Demokrati – En fejlslagen gud", som nu er oversat til dansk.
Links ⬇️
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Hvad sker der, når vi forstår det frie marked og pengenes sande rolle? 🪙
Hvordan hænger renter, fiat-penge, guldstandarden og Bitcoin egentlig sammen, og hvordan kan et nyt, mere frit monetært system, se ud i praksis?
Rasmus (@rasmushansen) fra @SHOP21DK dykker ned i alt dette.
Se hele oplægget her:
youtu.be/MSuEHhq0q5M
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Imagine if I said to you "Earth is an uninhabitable place to live"
You look at me sideways and say "What?"
I reply "Planets are awful. Pluto/Uranus/Neptune, you'd freeze. Mercury, you'd burn. Venus, you'd be poisoned. Jupiter and Saturn, you'd be crushed. Mars: nothing to breath.
It's true. Most of the planets, including over 5700 exoplanets, are really really bad places to live.
But the conclusion that this means earth is uninhabitable is obviously a basic logic fail.
Now imagine someone tells you "Bitcoin is a scam"
Again, as someone who has used Bitcoin and understands how Bitcoin works, you say "What?"
They reply "Most crypto has gone to zero. VCs dump on retail. Memecoins are complete rugpulls. Pre-mined tokens, you get diluted to oblivian. ICOs, you're the exit-liquidity for founders and early investors.
It's true. Most of the thousands of cryptocurrencies launched since 2009 have been complete scams.
But again, the conclusion that this makes Bitcoin a scam is equally a basic logic 101 fail.
Earth is the only planet with a breathable atmosphere, the right temperature band, and liquid water.
Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency with the combination of no insider enrichment, a fixed supply that nobody can change, and a 17-year unhacked decentralised ledger.
In both cases, some very special and unique features make the general rule inapplicable to the one obvious exception.
This logical fallacy has been around long enough to have a name. Aristotle spotted it about 2,300 years ago and called it the "Fallacy of Accident". You take a pattern that's generally true for a category and force it onto the one member where the evidence clearly shows it doesn't fit.
Other examples of the logic fail :
- No-one I know can run a sub 4-minute mile, therefore Hicham El Guerrouj can't run a four minute mile
- "Drugs are bad" so we should ban prescription medication
A few days ago, Ben McKenzie sat on Jon Stewart's podcast and committed the same logic-fail: citing crypto's failures as his evidence against Bitcoin.
He's not the only one to fail in this way. Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, Jamie Dimon, Christine Lagarde all conflated Bitcoin with all crypto for years. Many journalists still fail to distinguish Bitcoin from all other crypto (though the better ones are starting to).
In fact, this fallacy has been deployed for years with impunity by people who either don't know, or forgot to mention, that Bitcoin has unique features making it materially different from all other crypto
The irony is that Bitcoiners and crypto-critics are on the same page: the rugpulls, the insider enrichment, the tokens engineered to extract value from retail investors are all things that Bitcoiners like @CorySwan and others have been vocally calling out for over a decade, long before category-conflating journalists and actors from teen dramas decided they had an opinion about it.
It's not that hard
Unless you have the attention-span of a gnat-fly, you can easily do 5 mins research (AI-assisted if you really want) and discover either what the core differences are between Earth and all other planets, between Bitcoin and all other crypto.
Earth is an incredibly, uniquely habitable planet for humans to live.
Bitcoin is an incredible, uniquely suitable form of currency for humans to use
Rasmus Hansen retweeted
Hvordan er det muligt at lave en smartphone?
Intet menneske, kun markedet, kan svare på det spørgsmål.
I denne episode forklarer @rasmushansen hvorfor markedet skal være frit og hvorfor Bitcoin er de helt rigtige penge for et frit marked.
Links ⬇️
