Meme - "CEOs don't add any value! I'm going to start my own firm without a CEO!"
"Okay then! That was always allowed!"
Svyatoslav Pidgorny @Slav636: "Starbucks doesn't need a CEO. It should become an association of employee-owned cafes, creating sustainable, community-centric non-profit business."
Meme - "Anarchists when the one optometrist in their village won't trade them a pair of glasses in exchange for poetry about being gay *clutches heart*"
Meme - "DEMOCRATS FOR DECADES HAVE BEEN A BUNCH OF RICH PEOPLE CONVINCING POOR PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR RICH PEOPLE BY TELLING THE POOR PEOPLE THAT OTHER RICH PEOPLE ARE THE REASON THEY'RE POOR"
Guillermo Carone on X - "In Spain I was audited because my brand new startup was unprofitable, and apparently that was suspicious. So not only was I loosing money, I also had to waste time and some more money with my accountant to go through that process"
Guillermo Carone on X - "One more "funny" story about the Spanish administration. This one is very recent. I purchased a small shop with squatters inside. I started the legal process to kick them out (BTW, you need a lawyer to do that, you can't file the paperwork without one). Six months later, the judge ruled in my favor. But here comes the "funny" part. The squatters needed to be legally notified of the judge's ruling, and they had 20 days after receiving the notification to appeal. But officially notifying someone in Spain is not like in the movies. You can’t just say, "Hey, are you John Smith? You’ve been served." The person receiving the notification needs to be legally identified, signature, ID, etc. The squatters in my shop were undocumented immigrants, no papers, so technically the police could not identify them and therefore couldn't officially notify them. The judge said it was the police's responsibility to notify the squatters. The police said there was no way to formally notify them without documentation. And this went on for months. MONTHS AFTER THE JUDGE HAD RULED IN MY FAVOR! Eventually, the police were able to kick them out because they managed to collect proof that they were using the shop to sell drugs. It was part of a widespread mafia operation. So I got my shop back, not because it was my property and it was illegally occupied, but because I was "lucky" that the dummies in there were selling drugs. The entire thing lasted 18 months and cost 5K€ in legal fees, plus the cost of restoring the space after it was returned to me in a deplorable state (see the photos), plus all the months I was not able to use or rent the place. I think cases like these are particularly delicate because they put the concept of private property on the line. And without the concept of private property, well, everything falls apart."
Guillermo Carone on X - "A "funny" side story to the squatters story I shared yesterday. When I bought the shop, the first thing I did was hire one of those “desokupa” type companies to remove them. It was a very disappointing experience. In the end, the most they could do was negotiate with the squatters. The deal they proposed was this: if I paid them to leave, AND on top of that found them another place to go squat, they would leave my property. Now here’s the part that blew my mind. The company I hired told me there is an organized network around this in Barcelona. If you go to certain "locutorios" and ask the right way, they will show you what is basically a catalogue of empty apartments that belong to banks. Because they have contacts inside, they know which properties the bank is not planning to move on anytime soon and are likely to remain empty for a while. You choose the one you like, almost as if you were at a real estate agency. Prices vary depending on size and location, and for a fee, they will open the property for you, deactivate the alarm if there is one, and set you up to occupy it. I find this EXTREMELY disturbing. These people have built a business model around properties that are not theirs. You can agree or disagree with banks keeping properties empty. That’s a separate debate. But building a business around using property that does not belong to you... is simply not right."
Guillermo Carone on X - "Since my last tweet sparked so much interest, here is another “funny” story about the Spanish administration. One day I checked my bank account and saw a €590 charge I did not recognize. After 20 min on the phone whit my bank, I learned Hacienda had seized the money. They gave me a case number. I started calling to understand why. No one would explain it over the phone. They could not verify my identity remotely. I had to go in person. The next appointment was in three weeks. At the appointment, they told me a commercial space I owned was being used as a home. Illegal. I told them I had sold it a year earlier, and that when I owned it, it was rented as storage. 20 sqm. One open room. They said THEY HAD PROOF and showed me photos. The photos were not my shop. The building has three street level shops: 1, 2, 3. The inspector mixed them up. He took photos of shop 1 but wrote shop 3 in some forms. The infraction happened three years earlier. Shop 1 was notified repeatedly and did nothing about it. When it was time to collect, they charged shop 3. That was me. The photos showed a kitchen and a bedroom. My shop was a single 20 sqm space. They could verify that in public property records. They said they needed an inspection. Next available slot: two months. I repeated that I no longer owned the property. I could not give access to something that was not mine. They escalated the case. Over the next year, I received three calls. Each time I had to explain everything again. Each time they asked if I could get the new owner to give access. I did not know the new owner. They said they would call back. Finally, someone senior called. He said this would be the last time they called if I was not willing to cooperate. I said I couldn’t do what they asked, no matter how much I wanted to. He said there was nothing they could do. AND THAT IS HOW I LOST €590, spent 10 to 12 hours on calls and visits, and carried this issue in my head for over a year."
Guillermo Carone on X - "Want to hear an even more surreal story? I was a freelancer in Spain, making 4-5K€ per month. Then my son was born, and I was forced to take at least 6 weeks of paternity leave. During this time I would be paid around 900€/month (regardless of how much I made). A good portion of my income came from ongoing monthly contracts that didn't require daily involvement on my part, and I arranged with my clients to do more work upfront and then catch up when I came back to make up for my time away. HOWEVER, to my surprise, my accountant told me the Spanish system did not allow me to create invoices during my paternity leave. I asked if I could give up my paternity leave "benefits" altogether. The answer was NO. So for a while there, I was forced by the government to stop generating 4-5K€ for my family and instead take the 900€ they so kindly were giving me."
Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - "the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.”(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2) Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O’Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)... the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8) The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada’s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that “providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women.”(9)... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12) I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13) As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity. Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society... The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check. The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15) Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, “A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job.”(16) Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is “almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools.” Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)"
Weird. Left wingers keep claiming that increasing welfare will reduce crime
Meme - Charlie Smirkley @charliesmirkley: "The inequality causes crime narrative is activist science. 43 studies. 1,341 estimates. Half the data never published. Corrected effect: near zero. Inequality doesn’t drive crime."
"Publication Bias in the Inequality-Crime Literature 341 estimates - 43 studies - funnel plot of standardised mean differences
Pazzona, M. (2024). Revisiting the income inequality-crime puzzle. World Development, 176"
Clear proof not just that poverty causes crime, but that inequality causes crime
Meme - Flo Crivello @Altimor: "Can't wait for the "science is real" people to change their views on taxation and economic freedom now that the science is settled"
"Correlation between Economic Freedom and GDP Change 1990 to 2000 *positive*"
Handre on X - "What poeople think regulations do:
- Protect consumers from greedy corporations
- Ensure product safety and quality
- Level the playing field for small business
- Prevent market failures and exploitation
What regulations actually do:
- Create massive compliance costs that only big corporations can afford
- Establish regulatory capture where industries write their own rules
- Strangle innovation and entrepreneurship in red tape
- Build permanent bureaucratic empires that expand regardless of results
You're not getting consumer protection. You're getting a cartelization mechanism that happens to sound compassionate."
Meme - "I would rather have a thousand lazy bums live off my tax dollars than let a single poverty-stricken family go without food or shelter."
"Then donate your own fucking money instead of stealing mine at gunpoint. Here you go, put your money where your mouth is. *gifts to government*"
Meme - Employer: "Hey, I Have an offer for you: Do this and I'Il give you money"
Employee: "Sound great to me"
Upset Commie: "STOP OPPRESSING THE WORKING CLASS"
Meme - *Clown putting on makeip*
"We need a high minimum wage that big business can afford but small businesses can't."
"We need expensive regulations that small competitors can't afford."
"We need government to close small businesses during the Pandemic but leave big ones open."
"Amazon is too big. Capitalism has failed."
MC Squared on X - "Capitalism invariably produces a small parasitic class of people who live securely and affluently from the collective labor of others, while contributing little or nothing to society themselves."
Rock Chartrand🤑 on X - "Communists and socialists deliberately invert the meaning of parasite because the real definition points straight at them. A parasite is someone who survives by extracting value from others without voluntary exchange or productive contribution. That description fits people who demand subsidies, entitlements, bailouts, and protection from competition, not people who build companies and persuade others to trade with them. So they flip the script. They call producers “parasites” to evade the obvious fact that production requires competence, risk, and value creation, while dependency requires none of it. The inversion isn’t economic. It’s psychological. It’s a way to turn failure into moral superiority. Once you accept that earning is exploitation and need is a moral claim, every personal shortcoming can be rebranded as victimhood, and every success can be framed as theft. That's how losers avoid accountability while demanding power over the people who outperform them. If they were right, the people they hate most would be unnecessary. In reality, those are the only people making their lifestyle possible."
Meme - "Extreme poverty fell sharply worldwide - even excluding China. Extreme poverty is defined as living below the International Poverty Line of $3 per day. This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in living costs between countries. Global extreme poverty fell from 43% to 10%. If we exclude China, it still fell from 33% to 12% *1990 to 2025*
Data source: World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform (2025)"
So much for the left wing cope that if you exclude China (whether because it's supposedly communist or whatever), extreme poverty didn't fall.
Virginia Democrats propose new taxes on dog walking, gym memberships, deliveries - "Virginia Democrats have introduced a host of new tax proposals that would tax a range of services, including dog walking and gym memberships despite running on a campaign to increase affordability. More than 50 proposals and new rules were introduced for the new legislative session, including additional local sales tax in all Virginia counties and cities"
Virginia Democrats vote themselves 178% pay raise amid affordability push - "The development comes as Spanberger has centered her campaign on "affordability," with Richmond Democrats echoing that they are working to improve their constituents’ personal finances."
Austin Berg on X - "NEW: Two ratings agencies hit Chicago with credit downgrades today. Why? One major reason: The $11B in pension sweeteners signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker following token opposition from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration last year. I predicted this would trigger a downgrade when Pritzker signed the bill. Yet the Chicago Teachers Union and others are in Springfield right now lobbying for further pension sweeteners. Our political leaders are selling out the city’s future in exchange for political support from government unions. This has to stop."
Austin Berg on X - "UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune editorial board has learned Mayor Brandon Johnson is floating a secret $500M+ bond deal that makes *no payments on that debt* for the next three years. Not interest-only payments. Literally no payments at all. This would be the second major bond deal structured by Johnson to avoid any payments during his term and dump the liabilities on his successor. Johnson’s CFO Jill Jaworski presented entirely different numbers to the Council when seeking approval for the borrowing. Have to believe that Fitch witnessing this bait and switch from the mayor’s office contributed to the credit downgrade this week."
Meme - Chris Freiman @cafreiman: "Even if you think military spending is too high, it's important to recognize that far more of your tax dollars go to entitlement programs:
Federal Spending by Category, 1947-2021, as a Percentage of GDP
National Defense (5% in 2021)
Major Entitlements (over 20% in 2021)
All other
Source: US Budgets, Congressional Budget Office"
rust bett roadtrip @gmoutt: "we're always told there's no money for libraries, for healthcare, for universities, for high speed rail, for sewer upgrades, and yet there's always infinite money for war"
One cope is that it doesn't matter if a lot more money is already spent on their social spending. It's still better to spend money there than on defence
Thread by @sfliberty on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - ""Sweden is proof socialism works!" Your professor loves this story. Politicians too. But there's one problem: Sweden got rich BEFORE it tried socialism. And when they actually tried it, everything fell apart. 🧵
Every campus economics debate ends the same way. Someone drops the Sweden card: "High taxes, big welfare—and they're rich and happy!" This myth has become the ultimate trump card against free market arguments. But what if the entire foundation of this story is backwards?
150 years ago, Sweden was dirt poor—poorer than Congo at the time. Life expectancy was half the average of developing countries. Families mixed tree bark into bread to survive famine. In Stockholm, 1,400 people crammed into buildings with only 200 one-room flats. As Swedish author Vilhelm Moberg wrote: "Of all the wondrous adventures of the Swedish people, none is more remarkable than this: that it survived all of them." Sweden's escape from poverty was led by the progressives of their time—but not the kind you'd expect. Anders Chydenius and Lars Johan Hierta were radical reformers fighting the conservative establishment. These liberal revolutionaries were the campus activists of 1800s Sweden—except they fought FOR free markets, not against them. They abolished guild restrictions, slashed tariffs, expanded property rights, and deregulated banking.
The results were astonishing.
— Between 1850 and 1950, Sweden's income per capita increased eightfold. Life expectancy rose 28 years.
— Infant mortality plunged from 15% to 2%.
— By 1950, Sweden was the 4th richest country in the world.
— All while government spending stayed at just 6% of national income in 1900.
Sweden only turned toward big government in the 1970s. And it nearly wrecked the economy.
— Public spending soared from 31% to 60% of GDP.
— Growth rates halved. By 1990, private enterprise had created no net new jobs since 1950.
— Sweden fell from 4th richest country in the OECD to 14th between 1970 and 2000.
Even beloved authors fled the system. Astrid Lindgren, creator of Pippi Longstocking, calculated: "If I make 1 million kronor in profit, the government takes 102%. I'd owe more than I earned." Ingvar Kamprad, founder of IKEA, fled to Switzerland. Ingmar Bergman was arrested for tax evasion and left the country. This is what happens when you implement the policies progressives call "fair share."
Sweden saved itself in the 1990s by returning to free markets:
— slashed top tax rates;
— abolished wealth taxes;
— introduced school vouchers;
— allowed private healthcare options.
Result: Sweden started outperforming Europe again. Free markets worked—again.
When your professor uses Sweden as proof socialism works, they're either ignorant of basic economic history or deliberately misleading you. The policies that made Sweden decline in the 1970s are exactly what progressives want today: massive spending, high taxes, wealth taxes, government control of healthcare. Sweden tried this playbook. It failed. They reversed course. We're about to repeat their mistakes."
Team Talarico on X - ".@JamesTalarico : The reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on Earth is not because we can't feed the poor. It's because we can't satisfy the rich. Elon Musk is about to become the first trillionaire. He's about to make more money than every elementary school teacher in America combined. Do we really believe one man is worth more than every elementary school teacher? Why do we have a trillionaire when there are kids without enough to eat, cancer patients going bankrupt, and veterans sleeping on the street? I'm all for success, but this is not success. This is hoarding. What leads a person to accumulate more money than they could possibly spend in 100 lifetimes when there are people starving in this one? What we can do is tax trillionaires out of existence and use that money to guarantee food, healthcare, and housing for every single American."
Chris Freiman on X - "Milton Friedman: “Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”"
Of course, left wingers pretend that "trillionaires" are an unlimited resource and that taxing them one time (since they will be taxed out of existence) will pay for unlimited social spending until the end of time
Mike Netter on X - "Seattle’s socialist Mayor Katie Wilson has officially declared war on grocery chains. She claims she will unilaterally BAN grocery stores from closing down in her city, arguing that food access is a human right that overrides business decisions. She said : "We cannot allow big grocery chains to close stores at will!"
The Plan: If a private business tries to leave due to theft, taxes, or safety concerns... the government will step in. Her allies in the state legislature have even introduced a bill (HB-2313) allowing the city to use Eminent Domain to SEIZE grocery store properties and turn them into government-run shops.
Mayor Katie Wilson calls it "protecting the community." Critics call it "holding businesses hostage."
Thoughts?"
FischerKing on X - "The grocery chains are closing stores because the City refuses to control crime, which leads to extensive shoplifting that makes the stores unprofitable. They also become unsafe, and so customers don't want to go there and so the stores have fewer shoppers."
I got some amazing cope about this. This left winger claimed she never said that and I quoted what she said and this left winger quoted a longer version of the line and claimed that that proved she never said it
Wealth taxes are the best way to destroy a country short of bombing it - "In 1990, 12 OECD members still had wealth taxes. By 2017, that number had dropped to four, with researchers noting that “the revenues collected… have also, with a few exceptions, been very low”. That the political conversation in the West should have wrapped all the way back around to wealth taxes – or taxes on unrealised gains – all over again is a sign of just how tired our politics has become. We’ve managed to forget our old mistakes in time to make them all over again."
