If you can’t understand the minimum wage, you should be denied political power

If you can’t understand the minimum wage, you should be denied political power and treated like a cute but dangerous child when it comes to economic matters.

Whether a person can understanding the minimum wage should be a fundamental test. Can they distinguish between short term and long term? Can they distinguish between how the world is and how they want it to be?

The explanations by Hazlitt, Friedman and many others are so crystal clear.

Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike


“less than 10 percent of the world’s population will be living in extreme poverty by the end of 2015.”

How does the left countenance their hypocrisy???

Originally, the point of the left was fighting poverty. The argument went that Communism produced more wealth because it removed the inefficiency (greed) of those who owned the means of production. Communism was superior because it produced MORE WEALTH. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Samuelson told everyone this was inevitable.

All those scores of millions of people were murdered in the name of helping the poor. (Paul Samuelson, that degenerate monster, posited the question of whether communist wealth did not make its oppression worth it.)

Then, in the parts of the world where people had defended themselves against the communists and kept the snarling horde at bay, CAPITALISM created never-before-seen wealth. Capitalism ended poverty.

Capitalism delivered the promise of early communism’s most starry-eyed proselytizers.

As I like to say: The Messiah of the left has arrived, but the left has no need for a messiah that actually shows up.

The left abandoned their fight against poverty and forgot that it ever existed. They’ve anointed a new messiah, one that is guaranteed to never arrive and ruin their bloodlust for destroying social orders: equality.



It turns out that the gender gap in tech related fields is smaller in poorer countries. In Mexico and Turkey, a proportionally higher % of women go into tech than in the US and Canada.

While there are different ways to interpret this data, it seems likely that given more freedom, many women express themselves by going into more socially oriented fields.

The gender gap could just as easily be interpreted as evidence of liberty and prosperity, than as oppression.

Prosperity seems to encourage gender dimorphism.

In this era when “I identify as” has replaced “I am”, why is it so hard to accept that given the opportunity, many men choose a more masculine imagine, and many women a more feminine one, than each of them would be able to choose in a poorer society?

Answer: the left needs victims. They are nothing without an angry and restless class of victims.

Compare sexual dimorphism in birds which evolved with / without evolutionary pressure from predators and starvation.

Economic Theory: Parable of Broken Vases

The parable begins with a simplifying assumption. This is that it takes exactly two workers to make a vase: one to blow it from molten glass and another to pack it for delivery. Now suppose that two workers, A1 and A2, are highly skilled—if they are assigned to either task they are guaranteed not to break the vase. Suppose two other workers, B1 and B2, are less skilled—specifically, for either task each has a 50% probability of breaking the vase.

Now suppose you are worker A1. If you team up with A2, you produce a vase every attempt. However, if you team up with B1 or B2, then only 50% of your attempts will produce a vase. Thus, your productivity is higher when you team up with A2 than with one of the B workers. Something similar happens with the B workers. They are more productive when they are paired with an A worker than with a fellow B worker.

So far, everything I’ve said is probably pretty intuitive. But here’s what’s not so intuitive. Suppose you’re the manager of the vase company and you want to produce as many vases as possible. Are you better off by (i) pairing A1 with A2 and B1 with B2, or (ii) pairing A1 with one of the B workers and A2 with the other B worker?

If you do the math, it’s clear that the first strategy works best. Here, the team with two A workers produces a vase with 100% probability, and the team with the two B workers produces a vase with 25% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces 1.25 vases per time period. With the second strategy, both teams produce a vase with 50% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces only one vase per time period.

The example illustrates how workers’ productivity is often interdependent—specifically, how your own productivity increases when your co-workers are skilled.

Attempt at refutation here: