Viva la libertad. Carajo!
Munich
Joined June 2011
- Tweets28.6K
- Following476
- Followers570
- Likes53.8K
excess code detector retweeted
Kompletter Irrsinn: der Mieterverein macht das Mieten teurer, indem er für die Mieter eine monatliche Übermittlung der Daten zum Heizkostenverbrauch an die Mieter durchgesetzt hat.
@KaiHWar mit einem berechtigten Rant.
linkedin.com/posts/neue-rege…
excess code detector retweeted
das findet die künftige ministerpräsidentin in berlin inspirierend und holt es am 31.10. zu uns
excess code detector retweeted
Ob groß, ob klein, ich will Baustellen sehen statt Abrissprojekten.
Some root for large reactors, others for the small ones. I'd be happy about any reactors actually getting operational and cheap. The West was able to do it once. How about doing it again?
The French fleet was built for <3 €/W. 1979 they had a year with 9 construction starts (10 GW in total). Germany built Isar 2 (1.4 GW) in less than 6 years. Japan built Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 (1.3 GW) in 4 years.
Add the passive system, have a core catcher, let it run on the Apollo computer, and go. I'd be happy to get bureaucracy in line in Germany for enabling an actually useful and actually exemplary Energiewende.
excess code detector retweeted
Announcing Prosperity One: a proposed 6.6 gigawatt nuclear campus in Lewis County, Kentucky
excess code detector retweeted
🚨 I spend an enormous amount of time trying to understand the chaos we're living through. Not the headlines. The machine behind them. 🚨
If you want to understand what Elon Musk is really fighting, and who is really fighting him, this is the clearest map I can give you.
Expensive houses. Expensive schools. Expensive healthcare. Taxes that rise every year while everything gets worse. Borders nobody voted to open. Speech rules nobody voted for.
Most people look at this and blame capitalism. The market failed, they say, so the state has to step in and fix it.
They have it exactly backwards. What they want to fix it with is what broke it. This isn't chaos, and it isn't capitalism. It has a direction, a method, and a hundred-year history. Let me reverse-engineer it.
In 1926, Mussolini's regime threw Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party, into prison. From his cell he asked the question that would shape the next century: why did the revolution win in Russia but fail in the West, where Marx said it was inevitable?
His answer: in Russia, the state was everything, so seizing it was enough. In the West, the state was only the outer wall. Behind it stood the real fortress: the church, the family, the school, the press, the culture. Western workers never revolted because the culture held them.
So the conclusion was simple. Don't storm the palace. Capture the culture. Win the institutions and you never have to win the argument, because you decide which arguments are allowed.
In 1967, the German student leader Rudi Dutschke gave it a slogan: the long march through the institutions. Paris supplied the intellectual software, and I've already apologized for my country's part in that.
Then came the most patient operation in modern history. The students of the 60s became the professors of the 80s. Their students became the journalists, judges, civil servants and HR directors of the 2000s. Their students now run the foundations, the NGOs and the agencies. No single step looked like a revolution. That's exactly why it worked.
The method was communist. The ambition became global. And it grew like a cancer. A cancer never attacks the body head-on. It hijacks the body's own cells and feeds on the body's own resources. This system never had to defeat the West. It just had to make the West pay for it.
In America, the machine found a political home: the Democratic Party. Not the millions of decent people who vote for it. The apparatus. The donor networks, the activist groups, the consultants, the captured agencies that keep moving in the same direction whoever wins.
In Europe, it found something even better. The EU's founders, Schuman, Adenauer, De Gasperi, were Catholic anti-communists who wanted to make war impossible. But they built exactly what the long march dreams of: power that never has to face a voter. A Commission nobody directly elects holds the right to propose laws for 450 million people. Chat Control. The digital euro. Speech rules written in Brussels. Nobody stormed anything. They just drafted it.
Add the World Economic Forum, the UN agencies and the global foundation circuit, and you have the full map. You don't need a secret meeting when everyone went to the same schools, reads the same papers, funds the same NGOs and flies to the same conference in Davos every January. It's not a conspiracy. It's a class with shared incentives. That's harder to fight, because there's no headquarters to raid.
And the billionaires? Most people who became the richest in the world got absorbed. They built something real, then traded it for an aura. Bill Gates is the perfect example: he built the software that ran the world, then became the bankroller of global health bureaucracies and the funder of newsrooms covering his own causes. Laurene Powell Jobs bought The Atlantic. Benioff bought Time. You're not buying a business. You're buying the right to be called good by the people who decide who is good. That's the corruption. Not suitcases of cash. Money for aura, grants for loyalty, NGOs for policy. All legal. All invisible.
Here's the proof it's one system and not a hundred separate problems. Look at what happened to prices over the last 25 years. Everything exposed to markets and technology got cheaper: TVs, software, phones, clothing. Everything controlled by institutions exploded: college, healthcare, childcare. And housing, where you need a committee's permission to build anything. Same country, same economy, same decades. The difference isn't the product. It's who controls it.
Taxes go up and services get worse, because the money doesn't reach the services. It feeds the layers. Immigration happens at a scale no electorate clearly chose, because for a system that lives on managing problems, more problems means more budget. And a two-income family today can't buy the house their parents bought on one salary. That's real poverty, manufactured by a machine that is rewarded for looking good, never for being good.
MAGA isn't the cause of the chaos. It's the immune response. Brexit, the farmers' revolts, the votes shaking every European capital: same thing. The body finally noticed the tumor.
So what we're living through is not a normal political cycle. It's a fight to the death between two models. One runs on the perception of goodness. The other runs on reality.
And it had to be the richest man in the world. Anyone smaller would have been bought, sued or cancelled. Every billionaire before him took the deal. Elon walked out of the club and turned the lights on.
He bought Twitter for $44 billion, opened the Twitter Files and gave the world back a public square where any narrative can be checked in real time. He went inside the government and helped shut down USAID. Now Politico announces that the Democrats' gavels are coming for him. His answer: he'll find out who is really pulling the strings and go after them, not just their puppets.
He has one line he keeps coming back to: he cares about the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. That sentence is the whole war.
Now the part that makes me certain of how it ends.
A lie is expensive to maintain. It needs gatekeepers, censors, fact-checkers, friendly journalists, a budget, and constant repairs every time reality contradicts it. The truth costs nothing to maintain. It just keeps being true.
AI is driving the cost of checking anything toward zero. Any budget, any study, any statistic, any promise, audited in seconds by anyone with a phone. Yes, AI can generate lies at scale too. But producing a lie is cheap. Defending it against a billion instant audits is impossible.
That's what acceleration really means. It doesn't pick sides. It speeds up feedback loops. Systems aligned with reality compound. Systems built on lies hit the wall faster. And you cannot build rockets, design chips or cure diseases with a false model of the world. Physics doesn't read op-eds. The more intelligence we pour into the world, the more expensive every lie becomes.
You cannot scale a lie. You can only scale what's true.
We are close to the collapse of the old order and the birth of a new one. Not the one from the WEF's own 2016 video, "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy." The opposite. An order built on truth-seeking, efficiency, science, private property and free markets. You will own things. You will build things. And you'll be happy, because it will be real.
Gramsci's long march took a century. Its collapse will take years.
History will remember this moment. A man walked into the most powerful machine ever built, refused the deal everyone else took, and chose reality over perception.
I have never been more optimistic.
🤖 Made with AI
excess code detector retweeted
Das hat Merkel angerichtet - Habeck und Merz führten es fort. Dank ENERGIEWENDE steht Deutschland bei der Energiesicherheit noch auf Platz 67!!!!!!!!!! Hinter Ägypten und Bosnien.
WANN GIBT DIE REGIERUNG ZU; DASS DIE ENERGIEWENDE KOMPLETT GESCHEITERT IST?
Hier ist der Index,
adamsmith.org/the-global-ene…
excess code detector retweeted
WHO DESTROYED FRANCE? 🇫🇷
Yes. EVERYONE did.
1. Emmanuel Macron, a man who thinks he's Jupiter but governs like a McKinsey intern who accidentally became emperor. He promised a French Renaissance and delivered a complete disaster. His solution to every catastrophe is another speech about the future of Europe.
2. The ENA Elite, Sciences Po, and the Grandes Écoles, the world's most sophisticated factories for producing highly educated incompetence. They can explain the collapse of French industry in seventeen PowerPoint presentations without ever having entered a factory. They invented a system where the same people run the state, destroy it, and then get promoted to investigate what went wrong.
3. François Hollande, the socialist who declared war on finance and then appointed Emmanuel Macron economy minister. His presidency was so spectacularly mediocre that even his own party eventually pretended not to know him. He managed to make political paralysis look like an exhausting full-time occupation.
4. Jacques Chirac, who promised reform, encountered a demonstration, and immediately discovered the virtues of doing absolutely nothing. He spent twelve years as president shaking hands with farmers while the national debt continued its agricultural expansion. His greatest political achievement was making immobility look presidential.
5. François Mitterrand, who tried socialism in 1981, and discovered economic reality in 1983. He nationalized companies, reversed course, and built a pyramid at the Louvre. Appropriate architecture for a president who occasionally treated the French economy like a pharaoh's burial chamber.
6. The Socialist Left, which believes money grows on government decrees. Their economic model consists of taxing the rich, subsidizing the poor, employing the middle class in public administration, and borrowing whatever remains. When the money runs out, they accuse arithmetic of being fascist.
7. The French Trade Unions, which defend public services by making sure nobody can use them. They stop trains to save the railways, close schools to defend education, and block refineries to protect purchasing power. Their greatest contribution to French productivity is ensuring that nobody produces anything without their permission.
8. The French Right, which has spent forty years promising to reduce public expenditure, reform the state, restore authority, and liberate the economy. Then it wins an election, appoints seventeen ministers, creates four administrative agencies, and discovers that cutting public expenditure might upset somebody. French conservatives defend free enterprise in speeches and administrative regulation in practice. They want a smaller state, provided nobody removes their subsidies, pensions, privileges, public contracts, or favorite government department. Their economic program was essentially socialism with better tailoring.
9. The French Boomers, who inherited affordable housing, expanding industries, and economic growth, then converted everything into pensions and real estate. They bought apartments for the price of a used Peugeot and now explain to young people that homeownership requires sacrifice. They spent their youth demanding revolution and their retirement demanding that absolutely nothing change.
10. Pétain and Vichy, who responded to the greatest military humiliation in modern French history by deciding that collaboration with the occupier was an excellent national recovery strategy. France had already lost the war. Pétain somehow found a way to make losing considerably more embarrassing.
11. The French Generals of 1940, who built the Maginot Line and apparently forgot to tell the Germans they were supposed to attack it. They prepared brilliantly for the First World War, only to discover that the enemy had inconveniently arrived in the Second.
12. The Republican Idealists, who believe France isn't a country but a philosophical concept. Other nations build institutions. France proclaims Values. When schools fail, they organize republican ceremonies. When public order collapses, they deliver speeches about citizenship. When reality contradicts their principles, reality is clearly insufficiently republican.
13. Saint-Simon, Fourier, Cabet, and the French Utopian Socialists, who looked at humanity and decided the problem was insufficient central planning. Fourier imagined communities organized around human passions. Saint-Simon dreamed of society directed by enlightened productive elites. Their descendants now occupy French ministries, designing national happiness through administrative circulars. Two centuries later, the happiness is still missing, but the paperwork is magnificent.
14. The French Revolution, which promised Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, then introduced mass executions, revolutionary tribunals, civil war, and political terror. The revolutionaries liberated France from monarchy, discovered that citizens disagreed about liberty, and began executing one another. France has spent two centuries celebrating this as the birth of political enlightenment. Apparently, mass killing becomes progressive when accompanied by the correct slogans.
15. The Enlightenment, Libertinism, and the Marquis de Sade, who began by liberating humanity from superstition and ended by demonstrating that intellectual sophistication is no guarantee against moral insanity. Voltaire mocked religious authority, Rousseau dreamed of remaking society, and Sade turned transgression into an entire literary industry. Their descendants now believe that every inherited institution is oppressive and every new social experiment is automatically progress.
16. The English, who spent centuries sabotaging French ambitions, financing France's enemies, and preventing French domination of Europe. The Hundred Years' War was essentially a prolonged British property dispute conducted on French territory. Every time France attempted to become a continental superpower, England appeared with a navy, a coalition, and a remarkably enthusiastic willingness to pay somebody else to fight.
17. The Habsburgs, who surrounded France with territories acquired through marriage, inheritance, and a family tree resembling a biological experiment conducted without ethical supervision. They conquered half of Europe through weddings while French kings bankrupted themselves trying to escape the encirclement. The Habsburgs invented geopolitical domination through matrimonial administration.
18. The English, Again, because centuries of warfare were apparently insufficient. After defeating Napoleon, they conquered global commerce, international finance, and eventually the English language conquered French business. Today, French executives speak English to other French executives in Paris. England finally conquered France without deploying a single soldier.
19. The Romans, who conquered Gaul, introduced taxation, centralized administration, and the idea that provincial populations should be governed by distant officials convinced of their intellectual superiority. Two thousand years later, Paris continues to administer France like a Roman governor collecting taxes from barbarians. Rome collapsed. French bureaucracy survived. Live like Rome, die like Rome.
20. Darth Vader, the ultimate French technocrat. He believed every problem could be solved through centralization, intimidation, and an enormous publicly funded megaproject. His Death Star was essentially the French Ministry of Finance equipped with a superlaser. It cost a fortune, concentrated all power in one place, and exploded because nobody listened to the engineers.
21. Saruman and Sauron, the spiritual ancestors of French industrial planning and European centralization. Saruman wanted to replace forests with factories. Sauron wanted to unite the continent under one supreme administrative authority. Both believed that enough central planning could overcome reality. Both were eventually defeated by small provincial creatures who refused to follow instructions.
22. Satan, who has reportedly retired from corrupting France because the competition has become unbearable. He spent centuries encouraging pride, vanity, envy, and destructive political passions, only to discover that French politicians could produce the same results without supernatural assistance. He applied for a position at the Ministry of Finance but was rejected for insufficient administrative experience.
And the French people?
They have spent more than two centuries overthrowing kings, emperors, republics, governments, and presidents, convinced that the next political arrangement would finally solve everything.
They have tried absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, revolutionary dictatorship, empire, parliamentary republics, presidential republicanism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and technocracy.
Every generation announces that France needs a revolution.
Every revolution promises to put an end to the failures of the previous regime.
And every new regime eventually discovers that it has inherited THE FRENCH.
excess code detector retweeted
Wer die Gegenwart verstehen will, muß die Geschichte kennen. Man findet ihre Zeugnisse in den Bibliotheken:
"... Demokratie hält an, solange noch Zeugen der Gewaltherrschaft der Oligarchen da sind; man ist mit dem gegenwärtigen Zustand zufrieden und schätzt Gleichheit und Redefreiheit am höchsten. Mit dem Heranwachsen einer neuen Generation und der Übergabe der Demokratie an die Enkel hört die Hochschätzung der inzwischen zur Gewohnheit gewordenen Gleichheit und Redefreiheit auf; vor allem die Reichen versuchen, die Überlegenheit über die Menge zu gewinnen. Unfähig, die Herrschaft durch eigene Kraft und Tüchtigkeit zu erlangen, ködern und verführen sie die Menge durch Verschleuderung ihres Vermögens auf jede Art und Weise. Hat sich die Menge daran gewöhnt, fremdes Gut zu verzehren und ihren Lebensunterhalt von ihren Nächsten zu erwarten, und findet sie einen großsprecherischen und kühnen Führer, den seine Armut von den Ehrenstellen im Staate ausschließt, dann löst sich die Demokratie auf und geht in Gewaltherrschaft (βία) und Faustrecht (χειροκρατία) über. Zusammenrottungen, Morde, Vertreibungen und Aufteilung des Landes sind die Folge..."
Schwabe online
share.google/wMjjHgqt09X0YTZ…
excess code detector retweeted
WER VERTRITT HIER EIGENTLICH NOCH WEN❓
Italien und Tschechien fordern eine zeitweise Aussetzung des Emissionshandels.
BDI-Hauptgeschäftsführerin Tanja Gönner erklärt: „Die deutsche Industrie steht zu den Klimazielen und zum europäischen Emissionshandel, das ist ein klares Bekenntnis.“
Sie spricht von „Abschaffung“ und erklärt, solche Forderungen kämen nur von jenen, „die keine Transformation wollen“. Andere ordnet sie einer „kleiner werdenden dritten Gruppe“ zu, die den Umstieg nicht wolle oder könne.
Spricht sie für die Industrie, oder für die politische Linie?
Wer wirtschaftliche Einwände als mangelnden Transformationswillen abtut, hat offenbar vergessen, wessen Interessen er vertreten soll.
Kritik an einem Instrument ist keine Absage an ein Ziel.
Ein Industrieverband ist keine Außenstelle der Regierung.
excess code detector retweeted
Today I'm going to explain why socialism can never work, even if you're 8 years old.
Not with statistics. Not with the body count, even though it runs into the tens of millions. With a school playground and a bag of marbles.
By the end, you'll understand what Mises, Hayek and the whole Austrian School proved more than a hundred years ago, and what the Soviet Union then spent seventy years confirming.
Picture a schoolyard. Thirty kids. Marbles.
There are clay marbles, glass marbles, agates, big shooters, and a few cat's eyes that everybody fights over.
Nobody ever decided what a shooter is worth. And yet every kid knows: a shooter is worth about five glass marbles. An agate, three. A clay marble, almost nothing.
Who set those prices? Nobody. They appeared on their own, through trading. Every trade is a kid saying: "I want that thing more than what I've got in my hand." Thousands of little trades like that end up creating a "marble exchange rate" that everyone knows, even though nobody ever wrote it down anywhere.
And that rate is alive. A new kid shows up in September and he's crazy about agates? The price of agates goes up. The other kids notice, and that night they dig through their drawers at home to bring more in. Nobody asked them to. The price told them.
Keep that in mind. That's the whole story.
Now a new teacher arrives. She's kind. She means well. And she finds it deeply unfair that Kevin has 200 marbles while Lily has 3.
So she collects every marble in the playground and announces: "From now on, I manage the marbles. I'll distribute them fairly, for the good of everyone."
On paper, it's beautiful. Watch what happens.
First problem: she doesn't know who wants what.
Lily loves blue marbles. Tom doesn't care about marbles at all, he just wants to play soccer. Emma has collected cat's eyes since kindergarten. None of this is written down anywhere. It lives in the heads of thirty kids, and often the kids themselves only discover it at the moment someone offers them a trade.
So the teacher distributes "fairly." And everyone ends up with marbles they don't want.
Second problem: nobody knows what anything is worth anymore.
Before, the exchange rate would have told her that cat's eyes were rare and precious. Now that trading is banned, there is no rate. She's blind. How many agates should she order for next year? How many shooters? No idea. She guesses. She guesses wrong. Next year there are crates of clay marbles nobody wants and not a single cat's eye.
Third problem: nobody makes an effort anymore.
Why bring marbles from home if they end up in the big common bag? Why take care of them if they're not really yours? After a month, there are fewer marbles in the playground than on day one.
Fourth problem, the most important one: the kids start trading again. In secret. Behind the gym.
Because Lily still wants her blue marbles, and Tom would happily hand his over for half a cookie. Trading is natural. You can ban it, but you can't stop people from wanting things.
So the teacher has to choose. Either she lets it happen and her system collapses. Or she starts watching. She searches pockets. She hands out punishments. She appoints "monitors" whose job is to report anyone caught trading.
She hasn't turned evil. She simply has no choice anymore. The plan cannot survive without coercion.
And guess who ends up with the nicest marbles? Not Lily. Not Emma. The monitors. The kids who are close to the teacher.
That's it. You now understand socialism.
Now replace the playground with a country. The thirty kids with hundreds of millions of people. The marbles with millions of different products: steel, wheat, bolts, medicine, size 10 shoes. And the teacher with a planning bureau in Moscow.
That is exactly what the Soviet Union was. The bureau was called Gosplan.
What I just told you isn't a hunch. It's a handful of the strongest arguments in the history of economic thought.
Carl Menger, 1871, founder of the Austrian School: value isn't in the object. It's in the head of the person who wants it. A shooter has no "objective" value. It's worth whatever a kid is willing to give up to get it. Sounds obvious, but it undercuts the foundation of Marxism, which claims value comes from the amount of labor that went into something. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, another Austrian, took Marx apart on exactly this point back in 1896.
Ludwig von Mises, 1920: that's the second problem, calculation. In an essay called "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," he shows that if the state owns all the means of production, there's no market for factories, machines or raw materials. So no prices for them. So no way to know whether it's smarter to put that steel into railroads, tractors or bridges. Without prices, the planner isn't evil. He's blind. Mises wrote this just three years after the Russian Revolution.
Friedrich Hayek, 1945: that's the first problem, knowledge. In "The Use of Knowledge in Society," he explains that the information that runs an economy doesn't exist in any one place. It's scattered across millions of heads: the baker who knows his oven runs cold, the farmer who can feel the rain coming, the truck driver who knows the shortcut. No bureau can collect all of that.
His example is brilliant. A source of tin dries up somewhere in the world. The price of tin rises. And everywhere, millions of people start using less tin, without knowing why, without anyone explaining anything to them. The price carried the information to the entire planet. Hayek compares the price system to a telecommunications system. The price is the marble exchange rate.
Hayek again, 1944, "The Road to Serfdom": that's the fourth problem, coercion. A central plan requires the plans of millions of people to be subordinated to a single one. And since people don't go along willingly, they have to be forced. One chapter of the book is titled "Why the Worst Get on Top": in a system where power decides everything, the people who love power most end up winning. The playground monitors.
Which is exactly what Solzhenitsyn said: socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. It's not an accident along the way. It's mechanical. It's not that bad people took over a good system. It's that the system needs force to hold together.
The Soviets themselves joked about it. An old joke goes like this: a nail factory is given a quota in number of nails, so it produces millions of tiny, useless nails. Gosplan switches the quota to weight, and the factory produces a single one-ton nail. It's a joke, but it's also the calculation problem summed up in two sentences.
Now you're going to tell me: "Sure, but it's 2026. We have AI. A supercomputer can do the teacher's job."
That's the fashionable argument, and it misses the point entirely. The problem was never computing power. The problem is that the information doesn't exist before the trade. Lily herself didn't know how much she cared about blue marbles until someone offered to swap. Preferences change every day. People lie to the planner to get more. And above all, no algorithm can plan for what hasn't been invented yet. Gosplan would never have ordered the iPhone.
And no, Sweden and Denmark are not counterexamples. They're market economies, with private property, free prices and companies that go bankrupt, plus a big welfare state on top. You can debate the right level of taxes. But that's not the socialism Mises and Hayek were talking about: the state owning and planning production.
So, for the 8-year-old, here's the summary.
Nobody knows better than you what you want. Prices are how millions of people talk to each other without ever meeting. Get rid of prices and everyone goes deaf and blind. And when people refuse to follow the plan, there's only one option left: force them.
And for the 80-year-old grandpa who remembers the Berlin Wall, I don't even need to explain. He saw both sides.
Socialism doesn't fail because it was badly implemented. It fails because it asks one brain to do the work of millions of brains. And when it fails, all it has left is force.
excess code detector retweeted
Stell dir vor, du hast dein Leben lang gearbeitet, warst sparsam und hast vorgesorgt. Genauso wie es dir die Regierung immer empfohlen hat. Du bist den Sozialkassen nie zur Last gefallen und hast immer brav deine Steuern und Abgaben gezahlt.
Du hast ein Doppelhaus gebaut, in der einen Hälfte wohnst du, die andere hast du zur Altersvorsorge vermietet. Um dir das leisten zu können, hast du auf Urlaube, teure Autos, eine neue Wohnungseinrichtung und Freizeitvergnügen verzichtet. Stattdessen hast du Überstunden gemacht, soviel es ging und dein Mobiliar auf dem Second-Hand Markt besorgt.
Inzwischen bist du Rentner. Jetzt möchtest du das vermietete Haus im Alter verkaufen.
Doch inzwischen sehen die Sozialisten in einem privaten Vermieter nur noch den gierigen Kapitalisten, der nicht nur vermietet, sondern sich auch noch am Wertzuwachs des Haus bereichern will. Die 10-Jahre-Haltefrist wurde abgeschafft, die Differenz aus Verkaufspreis und Anschaffungspreis muss voll versteuert werden.
Weil der Immobilienmarkt angespannt ist – die Leute haben in der Wirtschaftskrise kaum Geld – und energetische Standards eingeführt wurde, die niemand als du gekauft hattest, ahnen konnte, musst du zu einem viel niedrigeren Preis verkaufen, als du dir vorgestellt hast. Weil aber die Inflation in den letzten Jahrzehnten sehr hoch war, und die Kaufkraft des Euros auf die Hälfte gesunken ist, erzielst du mit dem niedrigen Preis aus Sicht des Finanzamts sogar noch einen Gewinn. Du hast als gieriger Kapitalist aus 200 T€ ganze 350 T€ gemacht – die Differenz versteuerst du jetzt! Dass dein Haus weniger wert ist als zuvor, die ganzen Kosten für Instandhaltung, der Ärger, den du bei der Vermietung hattest, den Leerstand zwischendrin, die Renovierung, die fällig war, weil du mit einem Vermieter Pech hattest – all das interessiert niemanden mehr.
Was ist das Fazit? Du hast immer gearbeitet, hast dir nichts gegönnt. Und am Ende hast du bei der Altersvorsorge sogar noch draufgezahlt. Dein angespartes Geld wird großzügig in alle Welt verschleudert und an diejenigen verteilt, die nicht sparsam waren und ihr Leben in vollen Zügen genossen haben. Was werden die nachfolgenden Generationen, denen diese Ungerechtigkeit nicht entgeht, daraus lernen?
excess code detector retweeted
Ich habe zu keinem Zeitpunkt von einem Konzern gemietet. Jeder meiner Vermieter war ein "normaler Mensch", der einen Beruf hatte und nebenher in Immobilien investiert hat. Ich kenne mindestens sieben Menschen, die bis zu 150 Wohnungen in Jahrzehnten erarbeitet haben, indem sie gespart haben und dann über Kredite die Wohnungen finanziert haben.
Zwei haben mit Krediten selber Mehrfamilienhäuser gebaut und vermietet. Mehrere haben übrigens völlig bei null angefangen, einer kommt aus einer Flüchtlingsfamilie.
Völlige ökonomische Ahnungslosigkeit verbunden mit Sozialneid ändert nichts daran, dass jedes Investment, auch eines Privatmanns, sich mit den Alternativen messen muss.
Schon jetzt performen Immobilien außerordentlich schlecht, wenn man sie mit Staatsanleihen oder Indexfonds vergleicht. Für sie spricht alleine, dass sie das Potential haben, im Wert zu steigen, der nach zehn Jahren unversteuert ist.
Dafür sind Renovierungen in teils exorbitanter Höhe erforderlich sowie jede Menge Arbeit mit Mietern, teilweise auch jede Menge Ärger mit Mietern. Das Papierinvestment hat dagegen keine Arbeit, außer dem Ausdrucken der Steuerzahlen und dem Eintragen in die Steuererklärung. Es verlangt auch kein Nachschießen von Geld, weil eine neue Regulierung die Veränderung von Isolierung, Heizung oder sonst etwas verlangt. Eventuelle Ausgaben in dem Papierinvestment selber sind allenfalls in der Dividende relevant, verlangen aber keinerlei Nachschießen von Geld und keinerlei Arbeit.
Wird die Steuerfreiheit bei der Haltefrist aufgehoben, gibt es einen Grund mehr, nicht in Immobilien zu investieren.
Wer glaubt, dass eine Besteuerung von Immobilienverkäufen für Privatleute keine Konsequenz auf die Bautätigkeit hat, gibt schlicht eine intellektuelle Kapitulationserklärung ab.
Wir werden von Verrückten regiert. Nicht geistesschwachen (obwohl das auch) sondern von Verrückten.
Wie kann man das letzte Bisschen Anreiz aus dem Bauen besteuern wollen?
excess code detector retweeted
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Je n'ai jamais été aussi optimiste. Pas malgré le chaos actuel, mais grâce à lui.
Je vais vous expliquer pourquoi l'empire du mensonge construit par la gauche depuis cinquante ans va s'effondrer, et pourquoi ce n'est pas une opinion mais une question de physique.
Tout commence avec un mouvement né sur X il y a quelques années : l'effective accelerationism, ou e/acc.
Au départ, c'est une idée presque thermodynamique. L'univers a une tendance de fond : la matière s'organise pour capter et dissiper l'énergie de plus en plus efficacement. Une cellule fait ça. Une forêt fait ça. Une civilisation fait ça. Le marché, la technologie et le capital sont les formes les plus avancées de ce processus. Ce sont des machines à transformer l'énergie en intelligence, en abondance, en complexité.
La thèse e/acc est simple : il ne faut pas freiner cette dynamique, il faut l'embrasser. Plus d'énergie, plus de calcul, plus d'innovation, plus de croissance. Monter sur l'échelle de Kardashev au lieu de s'excuser d'exister. En face, il y a les « décels » : ceux qui veulent ralentir, réguler, taxer, interdire, culpabiliser. Ceux qui voient le progrès comme une menace à contenir plutôt qu'une force à libérer.
Mais il y a une dimension de l'accélération dont presque personne ne parle. L'accélération n'est pas seulement un moteur. C'est un filtre.
Pensez à n'importe quel organisme. Un corps humain en bonne santé peut courir. Il accélère, son cœur pompe plus fort, ses muscles consomment plus d'oxygène, et tout fonctionne parce que le système est bien conçu. Maintenant, prenez un corps malade. Des artères bouchées, un cœur fragile, des organes qui ne communiquent plus entre eux. Faites-le courir. Il ne va pas plus vite vers la santé. Il va plus vite vers l'infarctus.
L'accélération ne corrige pas les défauts d'un système. Elle les amplifie. Un système sain qui accélère devient plus fort. Un système dysfonctionnel qui accélère meurt plus vite.
Et c'est exactement ce qui est en train d'arriver au projet que je vais appeler par son nom : le projet globalo-socialiste. Celui porté par les démocrates américains, par la technostructure de Bruxelles, par les entités supranationales qui n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, par un réseau d'ONG financées par l'argent public pour dicter la morale aux peuples qui les financent.
Regardez ce que ce projet a produit.
Des États obèses qui prélèvent plus de la moitié de la richesse produite et qui délivrent des services publics de plus en plus dégradés. Des écoles qui n'apprennent plus à lire mais qui apprennent à culpabiliser. Des hôpitaux à bout de souffle malgré des budgets records. Une immigration massive sans aucune exigence d'assimilation, présentée comme une chance par ceux qui n'en subissent jamais les conséquences. Une désindustrialisation organisée au nom d'une écologie punitive qui délocalise la pollution en Chine et l'emploi avec. Des normes, des normes, et encore des normes, jusqu'à ce qu'il devienne plus simple de créer une entreprise à Austin qu'à Lyon. Une justice qui excuse le coupable et soupçonne la victime. Une censure qui avance masquée sous le nom de « lutte contre la désinformation ». Et une jeunesse à qui l'on a expliqué que son pays, son histoire et sa civilisation étaient des crimes à expier.
Ce n'est pas un ensemble de bugs. C'est la conception elle-même.
Maintenant, changeons d'image. Voyez ce système comme un moteur.
Un bon moteur, c'est de la précision. Des pièces qui s'emboîtent, un minimum de frottements, une énergie qui se transforme en mouvement. Le marché libre, la propriété, la responsabilité individuelle, la monnaie saine : c'est ça, un moteur bien conçu. L'information circule par les prix, chaque erreur est sanctionnée, chaque bonne idée est récompensée.
Le moteur socialiste, lui, est mal conçu dès le départ. Il ne tourne pas sur la création de valeur mais sur sa redistribution. Il ne récompense pas la performance, il la taxe. Il ne laisse pas les erreurs mourir, il les subventionne. Résultat : ça frotte partout. Ça chauffe. Ça grince. Chaque pièce use la pièce d'à côté.
Et que font ceux qui pilotent ce moteur ? Au lieu de le reconcevoir, ils changent les pièces. En permanence. Une pièce cède, on en remet une neuve. Encore une. Encore une.
Ces pièces de rechange, vous les connaissez. Elles s'appellent la dette publique et la planche à billets.
La France a dépassé les 3 300 milliards d'euros de dette et n'a pas voté un budget à l'équilibre depuis le milieu des années 70. Les États-Unis ont franchi les 37 000 milliards de dollars. Les banques centrales ont maintenu des taux à zéro pendant des années, imprimé des montants que plus personne ne sait se représenter, et quand l'inflation est arrivée, elles ont fait semblant d'être surprises. Milton Friedman l'avait pourtant dit il y a cinquante ans : l'inflation est toujours et partout un phénomène monétaire.
Chaque crise, on rachète du temps avec de l'argent qui n'existe pas. Chaque problème structurel, on l'arrose de liquidités pour masquer le bruit du moteur. Mais les frottements sont toujours là. Ils s'accumulent. Et la facture des pièces de rechange finit par coûter plus cher que le moteur lui-même : la charge de la dette devient l'un des premiers postes de dépense de l'État français.
Pendant des décennies, ce moteur mal conçu a pu tourner à 3 000 tours par minute. Lentement. Bruyamment. Mais il tournait. Le monde allait assez doucement pour que le bricolage permanent suffise à masquer l'absurdité de la conception.
Et puis l'IA est arrivée.
L'intelligence artificielle, c'est l'accélération la plus brutale de l'histoire humaine. Ce qui prenait des années prend des mois. Ce qui prenait des mois prend des jours. Des entreprises de dix personnes font ce que faisaient des entreprises de mille. Le capital, les talents et les idées se déplacent à la vitesse de la lumière vers les endroits où ils sont bien traités.
L'IA vient de faire passer le moteur de 3 000 à 20 000 tours par minute.
Posez-vous la question qu'un ingénieur se poserait. Que se passe-t-il quand on fait monter à 20 000 tours un moteur mal conçu, rafistolé de partout, qui frotte à chaque rotation ?
Il explose.
Pas parce que quelqu'un l'a saboté. Parce que la physique ne négocie pas.
Et c'est exactement ce que nous voyons en ce moment, sous nos yeux.
L'insécurité qui gagne des villes entières qui étaient paisibles il y a vingt ans. Le conflit de Gaza importé dans nos rues et instrumentalisé par une gauche qui a troqué l'ouvrier contre le clientélisme communautaire. La misère qui revient dans un pays qui a pourtant un des taux de dépense publique les plus élevés au monde. Des classes moyennes qui travaillent et n'arrivent plus à se loger. Une France fracturée, où l'on parle désormais à voix haute de risque de guerre civile.
Ce ne sont pas des accidents. Ce ne sont pas des « crises » successives sans lien entre elles. Ce sont les pièces du moteur qui commencent à voler.
C'est la conséquence logique de cinquante ans de socialisme international : un système qui a détruit la responsabilité, la frontière, la monnaie, l'école et la fierté, et qui découvre qu'à haute vitesse, tout ce qui a été détruit ne peut plus être compensé par une ligne de dette supplémentaire.
Et c'est là que je deviens profondément optimiste.
Parce qu'une fois qu'on a compris ça, on comprend aussi que leur projet a une date de fin. Pas une date politique. Une date physique. Un système qui consomme plus qu'il ne produit, qui punit ceux qui créent et récompense ceux qui détruisent, qui finance son présent en hypothéquant l'avenir de ses enfants, ne peut pas durer indéfiniment. Il n'est pas soutenable par construction. L'IA ne fait qu'avancer l'échéance.
Le mensonge a besoin de lenteur pour survivre. Il a besoin que les conséquences arrivent assez tard pour qu'on puisse accuser quelqu'un d'autre. Dans un monde à 20 000 tours, les conséquences arrivent immédiatement. Le mensonge n'a plus le temps de se cacher.
Alors, que faire quand le moteur explose ? On en construit un nouveau. Et cette fois, on le conçoit correctement.
Écoutez Elon Musk. Un homme qui a reconstruit l'industrie spatiale, la voiture électrique et l'infrastructure satellite en partant d'un principe simple : revenir aux premiers principes. Ne pas demander « comment on a toujours fait », mais « qu'est-ce qui est physiquement vrai ». C'est exactement ce dont nos États ont besoin : arrêter de rafistoler et repartir de la base.
Écoutez Javier Milei. Un homme dont tout le monde se moquait, arrivé à la tête d'un pays ravagé par un siècle de péronisme, et qui a pris la tronçonneuse au sens propre. Ministères supprimés, dépenses coupées, inflation écrasée, excédent budgétaire retrouvé. Il a prouvé une chose que la gauche jurait impossible : on peut démonter le moteur socialiste et le peuple peut le soutenir.
Écoutez Milton Friedman. Relisez-le. Tout était déjà là. La monnaie, la liberté de choisir, la responsabilité, les effets pervers de l'intervention publique. Il disait que si l'on confiait le Sahara au gouvernement fédéral, il y aurait pénurie de sable en cinq ans. On a ri. On a confié le sable. On a eu la pénurie.
Revenez à une hiérarchie et au respect du beau. Une civilisation ne tient pas que sur des chiffres. Elle tient sur l'idée qu'il existe des choses supérieures à d'autres. Que l'excellence vaut mieux que la médiocrité. Que le mérite compte. Qu'une cathédrale est plus belle qu'un parking. Que transmettre est un devoir et pas une oppression. Le relativisme a été l'arme culturelle de ce projet. Le retour du beau, du vrai et de l'exigence en sera l'antidote.
Et enfin, faites le Nuremberg du communisme. Le nazisme a été jugé, documenté, enseigné, et il est devenu moralement indéfendable. Le communisme, avec ses dizaines de millions de morts, ses goulags, ses famines organisées et ses peuples réduits en esclavage, n'a jamais eu ce procès. On peut encore porter un t-shirt du Che dans une université sans que personne ne cille. Tant que ce procès historique et moral n'aura pas eu lieu, l'idéologie continuera de muter et de revenir sous de nouveaux noms. Il faut nommer les crimes, les enseigner, honorer les victimes, et rendre cette idéologie aussi infréquentable que celle qu'elle prétendait combattre.
Le monde qui vient sera plus rapide, plus exigeant et plus impitoyable avec les systèmes mal conçus. C'est une terrible nouvelle pour ceux qui ont vécu du mensonge.
Et c'est la meilleure nouvelle de notre génération pour tous ceux qui veulent construire.
Le moteur va exploser. À nous de dessiner le suivant.
