Data Scientist / Macroeconomics Latest Paper in preprint: The Zero-Equity Identity https://xitter.cf/t.co/4m5eMNjjU0
Joined March 2022
- Tweets15.4K
- Following1K
- Followers543
- Likes19K
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
The Ten Men and the Barley Field
Every week, ten men go down to the pub, and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
Eight of them work. One grows the barley. One brews it into beer. One built the pub, one keeps its roof sound, one carts the barrels, one coopers them, one pulls the pints, and one nurses the others when they fall ill. Between them, everything on the table that night was made by their hands.
The ninth man owns the land: the field the barley grows in, the brewery, the pub, and the cottages the eight men sleep in. The tenth man lends money. The farmer borrowed from him for a plough, the brewer for his copper, and the builder for his tools.
Each of the eight working men is paid £20 a week. But before he reaches the pub, he pays the ninth man £8 in rent and the tenth man £5 in interest. That leaves him £7.
So the ninth man arrives at the pub with £64, and the tenth man arrives with £40, though neither has grown, brewed, built, or carried anything that week.
When the bill comes, they split it the way we pay our taxes. The eight working men pay £2 each. The landlord pays £50. The financier pays £34.
"Look at that," says the landlord. "I pay half the bill."
"And I pay a third," says the financier. "Without us, you lot would be drinking water."
The farmer looks at the £50 on the table and says nothing, because he knows exactly whose money it was an hour ago.
One day, the barman announces that, since they're such good customers, he'll knock £20 off the weekly bill. The eight working men now pay £1 each, and they go home happy with their extra pound.
The next week, the landlord notices they have an extra pound each. "Beer's cheaper now," he says. "You can clearly afford a little more rent." He raises each man's rent by £1. The eight men are exactly where they started. The landlord is £8 a week richer. The windfall went where windfalls always go: to whoever owns the ground everyone else has to stand on.
Still, the landlord and the financier grumble that they pay far too much of the bill, and one evening they announce that they're off to drink overseas, where they're better appreciated.
The eight men brace themselves. But the next morning the field is still there, because the landlord couldn't fit it in his luggage. The barley still grows. The brewer still brews. The roof still keeps the rain out. And with no rent or interest to pay, each man walks into the pub with his full £20. The bill comes to £80, and they pay it with £80 to spare.
Some years later, the farmer fell ill and couldn't work the field. That winter there was no barley, so there was no beer, and no amount of money in anyone's pocket, here or overseas, could brew a single pint.
And that's how it works.
Tax the landlord and he may leave, but he can't take the land with him. Lose the farmer, and there's nothing left to tax.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, it may be because they own the field.
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.”
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free but what about the other six men?
The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage.
They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!“
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that’s how it works.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
With objectively sourced data - this is the smoking gun.
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
Nothing adds up about the RAF Fairford ‘incident’.
The lady farmer who reported the 8-10 suspicious masked men has never been interviewed or asked for a statement by police.
The 5 men arrested were released on bail shortly after.
President Trump says his administration had been working with UK authorities monitoring the threat so some time.
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has told the media that the farmer who reported the incident should keep quiet because she doesn’t know the full picture.
It’s clear we are not being told the full picture or anything near it. All very bizarre !
Men already known to authorities and released. This was intended as a false flag event
Let’s remember what actually happened at RAF Fairford.
It was a local farmer heading home from a party who spotted something suspicious and called 999.
Now these men were already known to intelligence agencies and had been under surveillance.
If that’s true, then how the hell did it get this far?
How did explosives end up in vans near a sensitive military base?
At what point were they going to intervene?
We’re constantly told our intelligence services are watching and keeping us safe.
If they already knew about them, why weren’t they stopped before it reached this point?
That’s the question.
And the British public deserves a straight answer.
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
I wouldn’t fancy being in the Pitchforkers FC dressing room this evening. The skipper is going to be apoplectic.
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
"Will I ever get my son back? Vaccinating him is the greatest regret of my life."
~ Parent asking me for help
oh my
the writing is on the wall
True to his word, Secretary Kennedy is quietly pouring big money into the study we’ve all been waiting for - Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed.
Del Bigtree said this weeks ago. They’re doing comparisons between vaccinated/ partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Now Dr Robert Malone just confirmed that they are looking to replicate the Henry Ford study. Dr Martin Kulldorf is running it.
The wheels are moving slowly but they are moving.
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
Aaron Siri just exposed the real reason why New York is at war with the Amish community.
Three Amish schools are refusing to comply with New York’s vaccine mandates.
And “ZERO” of the students have chronic disease.
No autism.
No juvenile diabetes.
No ADHD.
“We had a medical doctor go through and not just ask if they were diagnosed, but ask for symptoms.”
“We could find zero.”
Yet New York has fined these three schools $150,000 and counting.
Why?
New York politicians eliminated all religious exemptions to vaccines, and the Amish schools are refusing to comply.
These statistics expose why Big Pharma and their cronies in the New York state government are demanding compliance.
Because the Amish accidentally created an unvaccinated control group.
And that exposes how damaging the shots really are to our children’s health.
@AaronSiriSG @RMConservative
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
This mom gave her 4 year old unvaccinated AUTISTIC nonverbal child Fiji water, as per my suggestion. Just two weeks later she messaged me this.
High silica water removes toxic aluminum!
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
Boom! That was my post that is is being retweeted here and by President Trump.
And 330 years later there's still no Amish child that's unvaccinated with autism. All the Amish children with autism were vaccinated. That's the only thing these kids have that's different. They have the same environment, same food. But when vaccines are introduced they suddenly get autism.
Scientists are very upset that they can't find a single unvaccinated Amish child with autism. VERY UPSET.
We support this message @POTUS !
Autism rates in the Amish: 1 in 271
Current CDC estimate in US population: 1 in 31
And of the Amish autism cases identified, the published abstract did not report any as completely unvaccinated.
Why aren’t vaccine researchers studying this more closely?
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
I am bewildered, and not very impressed, by the visceral, naked, irrational hatred spat out by some defenders of Jason Arday. If a Cambridge professor is accused of being an unqualified charlatan, the accusation might be racially motivated. On the other hand it might not, depending on the evidence. The correct question to ask is not, ”What is the colour of his skin” but “Is it in fact true that he is an unqualified charlatan?” Please examine the evidence before leaping to the assumption of racism.
As for the idea that journalists “piled in on him” and “hounded him to his death”, most attacks were against Cambridge University. Jason himself was widely regarded as an unfortunate victim of foolish promotion way beyond his ability to cope. In appointing him to a professorship for which he was manifestly unqualified – in ludicrously describing him as “the best in the world” – certain senior members of the university showed a level of patronising condescension towards black people that could fairly be described as racism, while at the same time making him tragically vulnerable to such attacks as came his way.
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
I see and feel deep sadness and even horror of the news of death of Jason Arday. His memory should be honored by serious reflection on the system that created his impossible position: having to occupy a uniform/disguise created for him by white elites who used him as a political prop for the own propitiatory political indulgence. DEI is disgusting, degrading, inhumane, and institutionally condescending ideology that is rooted in lies. It kills, mostly psychologically but sometimes physically. This horrible turn of events should end it.
How do you kick a football this hard?
Brought to you in association with @DagenhamMotors, here's Julian Dicks Scoring Some Penalties.
(Stick with this, you won't regret it.)
Squirrel Patrick retweeted
The circumstantial ‘evidence’ in the Lucy Letby case is circular; Lucy is suspicious because she worked many shifts and was frequently there, therefore only the collapses that she was there for are suspicious. Circular reasoning leading to confirmation bias - somehow accepted by judge and jury.
youtu.be/wwjQq6zuMYE?is=CV5f…
Placing people in perpetual debt, without them collectively having the means to ever escape it, is arguably a financial enslavement
One of the most astonishing, and troubling, facts about our economy - and one that hardly anyone knows or takes an interest in - is that around 97% of the money in circulation is created out of thin air by the commercial banks (and overwhelmingly for lending on mortgage). As the economist JK Galbraith said in 1975: "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."
