We Asked AI To Simulate What Would Happen If AOC Was Forced To Learn Economics Made with @grok.

This is awesome

Oilfield Outpost II is open in Andrews County. The oilfields are the literal heartbeat of our modern day lives. #oilfieldoutpost #forfreedom

Today we remember and honor those who gave all for freedom. May we never forget their courage, sacrifice, and devotion to this country. Happy Memorial Day. #forfreedom

Before you vote based on a list of “endorsements” or a slate card, take a few minutes to watch this clip starting at 8:20. Too often, endorsements are about relationships, favors, or political strategy, not necessarily who will best represent taxpayers and defend liberty. An informed voter is the strongest check against political gamesmanship. Do your own homework, ask questions, and look at the candidate’s actual record and principles before casting your vote. That’s how we protect accountable government and real conservative leadership. #ForFreedom #LimitedGovernment

Aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. La déconstruction est le virus mental le plus efficace jamais conçu contre une civilisation. Il a été fabriqué en France entre 1966 et 1980 par trois hommes : Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Il a été exporté aux États-Unis, hybridé avec le puritanisme racial américain, et il est revenu trente ans plus tard sous le nom de wokisme paralyser l'Occident entier. Voici comment il fonctionne, et pourquoi il faut le détruire. La thèse est simple. Toute vérité n'est qu'un rapport de pouvoir déguisé. Tout texte sacré, toute loi, toute science, toute norme, toute hiérarchie, toute identité, toute institution cache en réalité une domination. Déconstruire, c'est montrer le rapport de force sous le vernis du vrai. C'est arracher le masque. C'est "démasquer". Formulé comme ça, ça paraît inoffensif. Voire utile. Qui n'aime pas un peu d'esprit critique ? Le piège est là. La déconstruction se présente comme une méthode. Elle est en réalité une ontologie. Elle ne dit pas seulement "interrogeons les normes", elle dit "il n'y a *que* des rapports de pouvoir". La différence est civilisationnelle. Une société qui interroge ses normes reste debout. Une société qui croit que ses normes ne sont *rien d'autre* que de la domination s'effondre. Parce qu'elle ne peut plus rien défendre. Plus une frontière, plus une loi, plus une science, plus une langue, plus une histoire, plus une biologie, plus une famille. Tout devient suspect. Tout devient négociable. Tout devient "construit donc déconstructible". C'est la première raison pour laquelle c'est un virus. Il s'auto-réplique. Une fois inoculé, il transforme tout ce qu'il touche en cible. La science est patriarcale, donc déconstruisons-la. Le langage est colonial, donc réinventons-le. La méritocratie est raciste, donc abolissons-la. Le sexe est une construction, donc choisissons-le. Il n'y a plus de roc. Tout est sable. Deuxième raison. Le virus est *non-falsifiable*. Si vous défendez une norme, c'est que vous êtes l'oppresseur. Si vous niez être oppresseur, c'est la preuve de votre privilège inconscient. Si vous citez des faits, vos faits sont contaminés par le pouvoir qui les a produits. Si vous citez la raison, la raison elle-même est blanche, masculine, occidentale. Il n'y a aucune sortie possible. Le système est conçu pour rendre toute objection irrecevable par définition. C'est exactement la structure d'une secte. Et c'est exactement ce qui s'est installé dans les universités, les RH, les médias, les administrations, les conseils d'administration depuis vingt ans. Troisième raison. Le virus s'auto-réfute mais ne s'auto-détruit pas. Si toute vérité est pouvoir, alors la phrase "toute vérité est pouvoir" est elle-même du pouvoir, donc sans valeur. Logiquement, la déconstruction se mord la queue dès la première phrase. Mais elle s'en moque. Parce qu'elle n'a jamais cherché la cohérence. Elle cherche l'efficacité politique. Et son efficacité politique est immense. Elle désarme ses ennemis et arme ses militants. Elle paralyse le défenseur et libère l'attaquant. C'est une arme asymétrique parfaite. Quatrième raison. Le virus produit des humains diminués. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Elle sait soupçonner, jamais admirer. Elle voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Elle peut produire mille pages sur le caractère opprimant de Shakespeare et zéro ligne qui vaille la peine d'être lue dans cent ans. Elle a confondu l'intelligence critique avec la pose critique. Elle est stérile par construction. Un esprit nourri à la déconstruction est un esprit qui ne sait plus rien édifier. Cinquième raison, la plus grave. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers. La croyance qu'une vérité est accessible à la raison. La croyance qu'un bien se distingue d'un mal. La croyance qu'un héritage mérite d'être transmis. La déconstruction a méthodiquement dynamité les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui avait nourri ses prophètes. Mais le résultat est là. Une civilisation qui ne croit plus en sa vérité, ni en son bien, ni en son héritage ne se défend pas. Elle s'excuse en attendant la fin. Voilà ce qu'on a fait. Voilà ce qu'il faut nommer. La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'un virus mental ne survit que tant qu'on lui cède l'autorité du discours. Il meurt dès qu'on cesse de jouer son jeu. Dès qu'on réaffirme tranquillement qu'il existe une vérité, un beau, un bien, un héritage. Dès qu'on cesse de demander la permission aux déconstructeurs pour bâtir. Dès qu'on refait. Dès qu'on transmet. Dès qu'on crée. Les bâtisseurs ont toujours le dernier mot sur les commentateurs. Toujours. Parce qu'à la fin il reste ce qui est construit, et rien de ce qui a été déconstruit. Alors aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. Et demain je construis.

This is the ultimate midwit healthcare take. No, 32 countries have not “figured out” universal healthcare. The UK has “free” healthcare, and roughly 1 in 3 cancer patients in England still fail to start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral. Canada has “free” healthcare, and the median wait for neurosurgical treatment is around a year. Australia has “free” healthcare, and over half the country still buys private insurance despite paying for a public universal system with their taxes. Switzerland has universal coverage, because residents are required to buy private insurance. There is no government system where benevolent bureaucrats tuck you in at night with a warm blanket and an MRI appointment. The actual lesson from other wealthy countries is not “they figured it out.” America’s system has huge problems. Our prices are insane, insurance markets are distorted, and hospital systems are cartelized. Our regulations make care more expensive than it needs to be. Yet we still guarantee access to even the 8% who don’t have coverage. We give easy routes to qualify for medicaid for those with disabilities. Pretending the rest of the world solved healthcare because they slapped the word “universal” on a rationing scheme is not analysis. It is bumper sticker policy for people who think access means having a card in your wallet while you wait a year to see the doctor you need.

What if we ran an experiment to settle the communism vs. capitalism debate? Here's the idea: Split an existing country in half. One embraces communism, the other incorporates capitalism. We check back in on them decades and see what happened... Oh wait, we did that already 🤷‍♂️

A better title for this latest NYT op-ed by a former “economic official” for Biden would be “Artificial Inequality” The amount of time spent on whether the whole pie, that is whether most people would be materially worse or better off, is negative. Not zero, that would be ignoring it. But negative as this former “economic official” just asserts, linking to one very dubious “study”, that inequality hurts growth (the evidence there is very very tenuous yet cited as gospel by the Church of the left — the first time they’ve ever actually cared about economic growth so at least we have that). Nary a word about how making everything more productive might lead, you know, to more for everyone. The former “economic official” notes that the rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume, as a negative for growth of course (note they are also killing society by NOT consuming enough). But the “former official” can’t, or won’t, make the jump to realize that if they have a low propensity to consume and the whole pie grows faster this consumption growth is very broad based. Always a focus on jealousy not prosperity — except to pause and lie about it briefly.

1/2 I’m against special tax breaks for data centers. I’m also against special tax breaks for everybody else. The goal should be simple: less government spending, lower tax rates for everyone, and a level playing field. Government should stop picking winners and losers and get out of the way.

Wisdom is earned and learned, not driven by the algorithm. Take a fresh, or first, read of Ecclesiastes. The Bible carries its truth from generation to generation. Nice piece by @BridgetPhetasy saying something similar. #ForFreedom

Straight from Hayek's road to serfdom. If you want big gov b/c you don't like the sociopaths running big corporations, just wait until you centralize the power into a single source (gov), and discover who gravitates there and ends up on top.

Milton Friedman: “When you hear people objecting to the market or capitalism, you’ll find that most of those objections are objections to freedom itself.” “What most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want, instead of what the person talking thinks the people ought to want.”

Okay. Let's have some fun. Whenever you bring up the heatwaves and drought of the 1930s, climate panic puppies are quick to dismiss them as “statistical outliers” that were caused by “unsustainable farming practices” in the Great Plains. This is cute, but it's not really true. The decade-long drought of the 1930s covered much of the United States and significant portions of Canada. The extreme heat in July-August 1930, June 1933, May-August 1934, June-August 1936, and September 1939 also covered much of the Continent. But the “Dust Bowl” itself was primarily confined to a relatively small area in northern Texas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, and western Kansas. In other words, farmers plowing up deep-rooted perennial prairie grasses and replacing them with shallow-rooted annual crops outside of places like Liberal, Kansas or Boise City, Oklahoma were not responsible for the heatwaves and continental-scale drought. Sure, those agricultural practices amplified drought conditions and, by extension, the intensity of heatwaves on a very localized basis, and they stirred up the dust storms that swept through the Great Plains, but those farming practices were not the actual cause the persistent drought or heatwaves during the 1930s. The drought was naturally forced by persistent La Niña conditions (similar to what has been occurring in recent years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean and an unusually warm subtropical North Atlantic (Schubert et al., 2004; Seager et al., 2008). 🔗science.org/doi/10.1126/scie… / open-access: nau.edu/mpcer/direnet/public… 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… Below average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific produced negative 500 hPa geopotential height anomalies over the tropics, which led to positive anomalies over the mid-latitudes. This created large-scale subsidence (sinking air) over the Plains, which suppressed rainfall for several years. Concurrently, a warm North Atlantic generated anticyclonic rotation in the mid-to-upper troposphere and low-level cyclonic flow that cut off moisture transport from the Gulf of Mexico (or America if you prefer; I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone) to the central United States, especially during the summer and fall. These two factors alone initiated the drought, as they had during the preceding centuries and also recently. In fact, severe droughts in the Great Plains typically happen about once or twice a century (Woodhouse & Overpeck, 1998), and occasionally have been so severe that they transformed the region into a de-facto desert with blowing sand. 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… Notably, multi-decadal droughts during both the 13th and 16th centuries exceeded the 1930s drought by intensity and duration, all naturally forced. A tree-ring analysis in Nebraska found that the 13th century Medieval drought lasted an incredible 38 years (Herweijer et al., 2006). 🔗journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.… / open-access: researchgate.net/profile/Ric… Land degradation only locally enhanced drought and heatwave conditions during the 1930s. It did not cause it, nor did it enhance those similar conditions exhibited elsewhere on the entire continent. In other words, you cannot simply dismiss the 1930s heatwaves and droughts because they are problematic for your narrative. It was almost entirely natural. It verifiably happened. And, it isn't going to be dumped down the memory hole so long as I am still standing, I can rest assure you of that.

Ai and manufacturing run on reliable, affordable energy.

Hey @ChrisMartzWX — is it me, or does the National Weather Service now create an advisory for almost any weather condition?

It's hard to imagine a more dishonest graph than this one by the Guardian claiming China is bringing people out of poverty while the US is not. The US poverty rate has been so low for >30 years that it wouldn't even show up on the China graph if it had been plotted to scale!

Capital gains absolutely should be indexed for inflation. It’s crazy they’re not. If that’s too big a tax cut then raise the rate but index them. Higher rates but indexed to inflation, perhaps coming to a similar total, makes much more economic sense.