Tim Worstall

Quite. This is why landlords, not tenants, pay business rates.

How lovely it is when people have the correct attitude toward Spud.

Ho Lordy. Household contents insurance should cost the same in every neighborhood? Really?

Whoo, Boy. "There won’t be any inflation If you raise the minimum wage, you increase purchasing power," Which is why inflation will rise, you've increased purchasing power.

This is fun. AVG seems to think that Cloudflare's own certificate is out of date. At which point we're going to have storms, rains, rivers of blood and cats lying down with dogs, aren't we?

Why do people like @unherd publish Michael Lind? He's still making the mistake @paulkrugman berated him for 30 years ago: web.mit.edu/krugman/www/rica… Average wages are determined by average productivity. Therefore increasing productivity in goods production (or AI, robots etc) increases services wages. That's just how the economy works. Not this tosh: "In principle, there is nothing wrong with an economy in which labor-saving technology allows goods production, agriculture, transportation, and, in time, construction to be done by robots and computers, with humans working in “high touch” personal service jobs — as long as those service sector jobs pay good wages and have good benefits and good hours. We can debate what government policies are necessary to ensure that, say, nursing-aide jobs are middle-class jobs — “predistributive” measures like increased collective bargaining, or “redistributive” measures like after-tax subsidies to low-wage workers and their dependents.  Social conservatives who want to subsidize family caregivers at the expense of commercial or public care can take part in the debate. But except as annoying hecklers, free-market conservatives will have no part in our national conversation on how to share the gains of whatever growth there may be, for the simple reason that free-market dynamics, without some kind of government intervention, will never translate the profits of investors in self-driving cars into higher wages and guaranteed vacations for nursing aides." unherd.com/2026/11/why-democ…

Dunno what it is, really, but something about this strikes me as not being quite nor wholly true.

Your @RichardJMurphy of the day: "Patriarchy establishes hierarchies of power." So now it's human beings he's ignorant of? It is, of course, femiocracy that creates hierarchies. So, basic Rev. Darwin stuff, having kiddies (or Haldane perhaps, grandkiddies) is winning. Having more and better is winning more. Males thus want access to more and better birds. Birds are the decision makers in who gets access. As the @rustyrockets case has just shown us those men who try to insist otherwise get put in jail. As @rustyrockets has also just shown us a man's fame and social standing loosen, dampen, an awful lot of gussets. Wimmins do dampen, loosen gussets, for men with social status. Not so much for those without. Thus competition for social status - hierarchy - among men is caused by the reaction of women to male social status. That's just how humans work. Status competition is caused, driven, by the female reaction to status. Which ain't the patriarchy now, is it?

The joy of this is the law. Above a certain number of hours an employer *must* offer healthcare. Therefore there are a lot of people offered just under that number of hours - about, say, 30?

Isn't that a fun number?

Not that I'd describe myself as a libertarian but: I got far enough into Capital to see that he really did mean it about the Labour Theory of Value. As that's wrong then the rest of it is tosh.

Does anyone else find this hugely amusing? Nationalising SpaceX would mean @elonmusk has an actual pile of a trillion $ not just share certificates worth that much on some days. Has @NaomiAKlein bothered to think this through?