与「capitalism」相关的搜索结果

FLASHBACK: Democrat Nominee for Texas Senate James Talarico in a private Zoom Meeting: “I'm... thankful that young activists have really drawn the link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in our country… and I think only understanding the ways that all three of those oppressive systems work together are we going to be able to begin the process of dismantling them.”

⚡️The early Bitcoin holder may be one of the cleanest wealth outcomes capitalism can produce. Think about what happened to the rare person who accumulated meaningful Bitcoin very early and actually held it. They did not need to build a 10,000-person company. They did not need customers. They did not need employees. They did not need a board. They did not need to manage LP money. They did not need to continually recreate the economic engine that made them wealthy. They made one extraordinarily consequential capital-allocation decision, survived years of uncertainty, and eventually the asset itself did almost all of the scaling. That is an incredible lifestyle outcome. A founder worth $100M may technically have the same net worth, but much of it can be trapped inside a company requiring their attention, carrying payroll, lawsuits, competition, customers, executives, financing, and constant strategic decisions. The early Bitcoin holder can have $100M sitting in an asset that requires almost no organizational complexity to own. Enormous wealth. Tiny operating surface area. That combination is rare. There is also something profound about how the wealth was created. They recognized a new category before the world agreed the category was real. The wealth came from carrying uncertainty. Bitcoin looked ridiculous. Then dangerous. Then speculative. Then legitimate. Then institutional. Every step upward removed uncertainty while also removing asymmetry. The earliest holders were compensated for occupying the period when the world could still plausibly say the entire thing was worthless. But survivorship bias here is enormous. Thousands of people also concentrated into things they believed were revolutionary and lost everything. Even among people who bought Bitcoin early, many sold at 2x, 5x, 10x, or 50x. Others lost keys. Others got destroyed by exchanges. Others overleveraged. Others simply could not psychologically carry an asset through repeated 70% to 90% drawdowns while everyone around them told them they were insane. So the extraordinary outcome required several things to happen together: see correctly very early, size enough for being right to matter, survive enormous volatility, preserve custody, and resist selling when the gain already looked life-changing. That is almost impossibly difficult in real time. The highest form of wealth creation may actually be finding a very small number of generational capital-allocation decisions rather than continually maximizing labor output. One Bitcoin-like decision can compress decades of economic effort into ownership of the right thing at the right moment. Afterward, the entire purpose of wealth can change. You no longer need to optimize for more work. You can optimize for autonomy. Time. Privacy. Research. Relationships. Travel. Building things because they matter to you rather than because they need to pay you. And compared with becoming a billionaire CEO whose phone can never truly be turned off, the anonymous person who quietly owns enormous permanent capital may have won a different and arguably more valuable game. The founder builds a machine powerful enough to create freedom later. The generational investor finds an asset powerful enough to make the machine unnecessary. That second outcome is incredibly rare. But when it happens, the lifestyle asymmetry is almost absurd.

The Tesla that Jessica just bought cost $48k and has a range of about 350 miles. The one she bought in 2015 cost $135k, adjusted for inflation, and had a range of 270 miles. People who think they dislike capitalism don't know how good they have it.

A new CBS News poll shows 58% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism and only 32% have a positive view of capitalism Democrat Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear responds people want a lower cost of living, “When you look at Democratic governors, you see those results” He says Democrats are the ones delivering on cost of living, creating jobs and making things affordable All these people do is lie The 5 worst off states in debt in the entire country are all Democrat - New Jersey - Connecticut - Illinois - Massachusetts - California The 5 worst states in affordability for cost of living in the entire country are all Democrat - Hawaii - Massachusetts - California - Alaska (Republican but doesn’t count because the cost is related to how expensive it is to transport goods here) - New York

Oui, j’en ai lu. Et justement, les livres des années 30 (et ceux écrits par des gens qui vivaient ça) disent exactement le contraire de la doxa d’après-guerre. Le programme de 1920 du NSDAP (points 11 à 17) n’est pas une glose moderne : abolition des revenus non liés au travail, nationalisation des trusts, participation aux bénéfices des grandes entreprises, réforme agraire avec expropriation, lutte contre le « capitalisme financier ». Les nazis le répétaient sans complexe. Hitler lui-même, dans ses discours et conversations privées, parlait de socialisme national et se situait dans la rupture avec le libéralisme économique. L’économie réelle sous le régime ? Contrôle des prix et des salaires (Preisstopp 1936), planification industrielle via le Plan de quatre ans, cartels obligatoires, allocation autoritaire des matières premières, entrepreneurs transformés en *Betriebsführer* qui exécutent les directives de l’État. Propriété privée nominale, pouvoir réel de l’État. Mises l’a décrit en temps réel comme une forme de socialisme (Zwangswirtschaft). Hayek, dans *La Route de la servitude* (1944), y a consacré un chapitre entier : les racines socialistes du nazisme. Avant 1935, le camp marxiste lui-même ne rangeait pas le national-socialisme à « droite ». Il le traitait comme un concurrent socialiste dévoyé. La théorie du « social-fascisme » (Staline/Zinoviev 1924, poussée jusqu’en 1933) assimilait social-démocratie et fascisme. C’est Dimitrov, au VIIe Congrès de l’Internationale communiste en août 1935, qui impose la définition qui va devenir canonique : « dictature terroriste des éléments les plus réactionnaires du capital financier ». Opération de branding pure. Il fallait monopoliser le mot socialisme et coller l’étiquette capitaliste à tout rival. Après 1945, les vainqueurs soviétiques ont imposé leur version. Les manuels occidentaux ont suivi. Et on a oublié que Mussolini venait du socialisme, que les Strasser et une partie importante du NSDAP se revendiquaient explicitement de la gauche anti-capitaliste, et que l’anticapitalisme racial n’est pas le contraire du collectivisme, c’est une variante. Le point factuel n’est donc pas faux. Il est même banal pour quiconque lit les sources primaires des années 20-30 au lieu des récits post-45. Le vrai clivage n’a jamais été « droite vs gauche » au sens scolaire. C’est contrôle collectif vs liberté individuelle. Une fois qu’on replace le national-socialisme dans la famille des collectivismes, le spectre redevient clair.

800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty in China thanks to a little bit of capitalism. Central planning doesn’t work. At least Deng Xiaoping saw Mao’s catastrophic blunders and understood that. Which is why when he took power, he ripped out the collectivized economy by the roots. >let farmers work their own plots and sell what they grew instead of farming for the state (food production soared almost overnight) >carved out Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen where foreign capital could operate under different rules than the rest of communist China > poverty crashed from nearly 90% in 1981 to under 4% by 2016 On his Southern Tour in 1992, Deng told CCP officials “to get rich is glorious.” He was right btw. And it is best done through private property and free markets.

On te vend depuis 40 ans que sans « sensibilité de gauche », les gens crèvent de faim. C’est exactement l’inverse de ce que disent les chiffres. 1990 : 2,3 milliards d’êtres humains en pauvreté extrême. 38 % de l’humanité. 2025 : 808 millions. Environ 10 %. 1,5 milliard de personnes sorties de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l’histoire de l’espèce. Qui a fait ça ? Pas l’aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la sensibilité de gauche. Le marché. L’ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng qui abandonne le maoïsme en 1978. L’Inde qui libéralise en 1991. Le Vietnam, l’Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s’ouvrent au capitalisme. Les seuls endroits où l’extrême pauvreté a explosé sur la même période ? Le Venezuela socialiste (de 27 % à plus de 80 % en dix ans, inflation à 130 000 %, un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos). La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe. La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique. Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre américain a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, la clim et internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz. Et le « social américain est un désastre » reste une légende française. PIB par habitant US : 80 000 $. France : 45 000 $. Un Mississippien (l’État le plus pauvre des États-Unis) a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen. Dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées. Être de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n’est plus de la sensibilité. C’est préférer la posture morale aux résultats. La compassion sans résultats, ça s’appelle de la vanité.

"DeepSeek competes through engineering excellence and operational effiency rather than secrecy." "Liang believes genuine research requires relaxed environments, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation rather than constant deadlines or overtime." "DeepSeek deliberately practices restraint. It open-sources its strongest models, prices its APIs for only a reasonable return, avoids competing in every adjacent market, and leaves many commercial opportunities to partners." 1. This is conscious capitalism that we all can get behind, not the extractive & winner-take-all capitalism that plagues the US. 2. Sounds like DeepSeek's culture is as healthy as it gets in the corporate world. Everyone's given autonomy and the space to do their best work. Obviously, every contributor needs to be truly mission-driven and highly talented for this to work, but this is a dream-come-true work environment for Elite Human Capital™️.

We probably have ~3 years left where human labor still earns real money. After that, most of it gets automated to the point where it doesn't pay. This is the end of labor-based capitalism, the model where you trade hours for a wage and stack it over a 40-year career. The window open right now is an information asymmetry. A few people see it coming. Most are waiting for it to be obvious. That gap is the whole opportunity. What I'd do with the window: convert time into things that survive the transition. Bitcoin, hard assets, compute, energy, food production, and social credit/distribution A wage is rent on your time. Automate the time and the rent collapses. Owning scarce things is the esc The people who spend these three years hoarding capital will look like geniuses in ten. When wages stop compounding, guess whats left? ownership

I want to ask the students screaming “Death to America”, do you have any idea what happens when American values die? Because I do. My family fled Iran, a country where freedom died. You don’t know what you have until it’s gone. You think America is oppressive because you have never experienced real oppression. You think silence is violence because you’ve never been silenced. You think words are dangerous because you have never watched a government drag someone away for speaking them. You think capitalism is evil because you have never stood in a bread line. You think borders are immoral because you have never had to flee across one. You think revolution is romantic because you have never had a revolution take everything from you. I have. And that’s why I refuse to be quiet.