“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.

https://fee.org/articles/the-end-of-extreme-poverty-and-the-great-fact/

PROSPERITY ENCOURAGES GENDER DIMORPHISM

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.

https://ricochet.com/archives/review-hive-mind-nations-iq-matters-much/
Attempt at refutation here:

curi.us/1809-the-parable-of-the-vases

Poverty out, Inequality in (a rant)

A bit of advice for all my leftist friends (if any of you still read my FB wall):

If you’re serious about being a leftist, you should get with the program — poverty is out, because it’s just too RIDICULOUS, and equality is in. Your peers made this pivot long ago and you should too.

Signal your moral superiority regarding inequality and you’ll still get a few suckers to admire you. Signal your moral superiority with “poverty”, and you’ll just look stupid.

I know what poverty looks like. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan and Tanzania. And I live in Ukraine which is far poorer than ANY american demographic. Officially, among the people designated as “poor” in the US —

76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths

This is why the LYING left has abandoned the poverty argument. The left murdered millions of people in their defense of the poor, and then capitalism solved poverty. Your messiah has come. But the lying, power-hungry left, has no use for a messiah who actually shows up.

So, poverty is out. Inequality is in. Inequality is better because it has been around among humans for 50,000 years, and eradicating it is impossible — so you can have your “permanent revolution” as Lenin advised.

Good luck.

Jordan Peterson on the Left’s Lying

If academics were intellectually honest, they would have fallen prey to their own logic long ago.

“Is your pain real? This is a question for people who think there is no such thing as meaning. You try to argue yourself out of pain and see how far you get. You might think ‘well that’s not the sort of meaning I meant.’ But you know, a negative meaning is a place to start. If there is something negative and it’s real that does imply there is something positive that’s real. It might be harder to get ahold of. At least it’s not pain.” – Jordan Peterson

So much wrong about Global Warming predictions

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

***

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

Why the left needs Big Government? (because parasitism is their strategy)

I’ve been puzzled by how the left, even faced with a perceived anti-christ as president, never considers that states’ rights, and limited government are virtues. Why don’t they get this?

I think I’ve figured it out. Their survival strategy is parasitism. They can’t allow their potential hosts to flee place themselves out of reach or flee to other jurisdictions.

They correctly sense that a gigantic centralized apparatus is the enabler of their parasitism. So there’s no “live and let live” for the left.

They need BOTH a powerful centralized government AND control. They are deaf and blind to the fairly obvious risk of the powerful apparatus they build falling into the hands of someone they despise.