During a recent appearance on MSNBC, a black activist lawyer suggested that crime in the United States could be completely eliminated if all crime was just legalized.
Yes, really.
The comments were made by Ben Crump, who specializes in civil rights cases and was the attorney for the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd.
The most insane thing you have ever heard from@MSNBC
Celebrity Black activist lawyer @BenCrumpLaw
says that criminal behavior in America is just Black culture. Demands the legalization of crime.@TheRevAl and other Black racial activists all express agreement. pic.twitter.com/bfEQr0b7AU
“We can get rid of all the crime in America overnight, just like that,” Crump told his fellow guests, one of whom was civil rights activist Al Sharpton.
“And people ask ‘how attorney Crump?’ – change the definition of crime.”
“Of course!” responded another guest.
“If you get to define what conduct is gonna be made criminal, you can predict who the criminals are gonna be,” added Crump.
Another guest responded by saying that suggested all black people were criminals by their nature.
“They made the laws to criminalize our culture – black culture,” responded Crump.
Respondents on X asserted that Crump was essentially acknowledging someone he probably didn’t intend to.
Actually he’s pretty close to right. Black African and Tribal cultures allow a lot of killing, and taking of property. The concept of Private Property is really from European culture. But, if they want to live like that they should go to Africa. We don’t want it here.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
“Enough Is Enough”: ‘Squad’ Member Tlaib Comes Out Against Biden
Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) encouraged Democrats to “vote uncommitted” in the Feb. 27 presidential primary due to the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict in the Gaza strip.
An “uncommitted” vote is a form of protest designed to send a message.
“Right now, we feel completely neglected and just unseen by our government,” Tlaib said in a video to Michigan residents filmed outside of a civic center in Dearborn. “If you want us to be louder, then come here and vote uncommitted.”
On Wednesday, Tlaib was the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning Hamas for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel. In her message, she said she wants voters to “support life” and “stand up for every single life killed in Gaza.”
“It is important, as you all know, to not only march against the genocide, not only make sure that we’re calling our members of Congress and local electeds,” said Tlaib, who in November accused Biden of supporting “genocide” in Gaza.
“It is also important to create a voting bloc, something that is a bullhorn to say, ‘Enough is enough. We don’t want a country that supports wars and bombs and destruction.’”
“I want you to think of all of the amazing young children and the people again, lives were lost in Gaza. This is the way you can raise our voices. Don’t make us even more invisible,” continued Tlaib, a vocal critic of Israel.
Tlaib marks the highest-profile Democrat so far to get behind the so-called “Listen to Michigan” campaign, which hopes to raise 10,000 “uncommitted” votes for its cause (around the same margin Donald Trump won the swing state in 2016).
Over the past three and a half months, Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza has strained his relationship with progressives.
“A lot of people in our base are feeling really hesitant about supporting Joe Biden,” said Stevie O’Hanlon, spokesperson for climate-focused youth group Sunrise Movement, in a statement to the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. “Joe Biden needs the young generation in order to win and that is going to require him doing a lot on climate, on Gaza, on immigration, to try and regain trust that’s been broken.“
We have previously discussed the increasingly aggressive role of the White House Counsel’s Office (WHCO) in defending President Joe Biden, including spreading disinformation about various investigations. WHCO spokesman Ian Sams has taken the lead in attacking critics and denying facts related to corruption and other allegations.
Now, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) is blasting a memo in which the WHCO instructs reporters on how to cover the recent Hur report and allegations of the President’s diminished faculties.
Sams is not a lawyer. He is a political operative who has worked extensively for Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee, including a stint with Hillary Clinton. He was recently accused by the former head of the WHCA (and my former student) Jon Decker of giving false statements concerning the Special Counsel’s report.
There have been previous controversiesover instructions given to the media by the White House. While the media has often been accused of maintaining a largely unified front protecting the President, actual memos directing their responses insulted many in the media. That is just not how this is done. You have to maintain certain proprieties and appearances.
Indeed, when the President recently snapped at a reporter by saying “that is not the judgment of the press,” it seemed to say the quiet part out loud in the ability of the White House to dictate coverage.
The most recent controversy came after Sams sent another letter with media instructions. Sams lays out how the report should be spinned in the media, putting in writing what is often conveyed in “background” chats with reporters.
It proved too much for WHCA president Kelly O’Donnell who called it “misdirected.” She added that “[a]s a non-profit organization that advocates for its members in their efforts to cover the presidency, the WHCA does not, cannot, and will not serve as a repository for the government’s views of what’s in the news.”
”To the extent that the President has used White House staff to maintain false claims or resist disclosures, it can fit into the type of Nixonian abuse of power model.”
The WHCO has long distinguished between the interests of a president and the presidency. Biden has his own personal counsel to oppose these allegations. That separation has now collapsed under White House Counsel Ed Siskel, who appears to approve of this advocacy role as Sams routinely lashes out at critics and investigators.
As noted in a recent column, Sams’s work is precariously close to the line drawn in past impeachments. Indeed, he may have already crossed over in the effort to swat back investigations into corruption allegations. Sams’s effort to spin out of these scandals could easily end up spinning the White House into an actual impeachment.
After the 10-day Lunar new Year holiday, Chinese markets are all set to reopen with China with a positive lead from the Hong Kong and ADR rally last week. as UBS notes, a lot of the press reports has been focused on the improvement in consumption in China, despite the ongoing deflation and property crisis concerns, but as always, the big question remains on the sustainability of any rebound. Very upbeat travel-related data news span from rail trips, online hotel bookings, spending on Meituan, Macau visitation data, and tourism spending. State media reported over the weekend that about 474mn domestic tourist trips were made during the 8-day holiday, up 19% from the same period in 2019. Total tourism spending climbed nearly 8% from that year to CNY633 bn, while domestic trips reportedly rose 34% and spending reportedly increased 47% from 2023.
Not surprisingly, the UBS desk says that it is better buying across the region, with early flows showing a 2:1 buy skew.
Below we dig deeper into the latest market dynamics as summarized by Bloomberg Markets Live reporters George Lei, Henry Ren and Jacob Gu, who lay out the three main things we learned about China last week:
1. A-shares are likely to start the Year of the Dragon with a bang, extending a rally that began before the Lunar New Year hiatus. That’s after investors piled into US-listed Chinese stocks in the week ended Feb. 16, when onshore markets were closed. The Nasdaq Golden Dragon China Index advanced more than 4% in the period, helping drive month-to-date gains for the gauge to almost 10%. In Europe, stocks of luxury brands with exposure to Chinese demand also gained traction last week. For those who don’t hold direct stakes in Chinese companies, buying options has become an increasingly popular trade.
Initial government reports pointed to a nationwide resurgence in road, rail and air travel over the week-long holiday, signaling a possible pickup in consumer spending. Beijing’s next steps to support the economy will come into focus when mainland markets reopen on Monday. The first data point to watch will be Tuesday’s decision regarding the five-year loan prime rate, which could be reduced by 10 basis points, according to consensus economist forecast.
2. Sentiment toward the broader Chinese market appears to be improving after a poor start to 2024. The outlook is becoming “incrementally more positive” and investors should pivot to “risk on” trades on Chinese equities, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in a research report on Friday.
The MSCI China Index is now trading below the bank’s year-end target of 56 under a bearish scenario, which presents buying opportunities, according to strategists including Wendy Liu and Marko Kolanovic. “If overcapacity sectors do see restricted equity issuance, leading players in the renewables and new energy vehicle ecosystem should benefit,” they wrote. Internet names such as Tencent, Alibaba and Meituan that were among the most net sold by active funds before the Lunar New Year may also see a reversal in flows, they added.
3. While China has been on holiday, global investors have been snapping up cheap options to hedge risks of a bigger-than-expected yuan drop. Societe Generale advised clients on Wednesday to take advantage of “multi-year low” prices and buy three-month USD/CNH risk reversals as protection against a move above 7.25. Yuan’s low volatility is mainly due to PBOC fixing, which hasn’t moved much over the past couple months but could face increasing challenges down the road, according to the French bank.
With US consumer and producer price gauges last month pointing to inflationary momentum, Citigroup, Societe Generale and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers are all telling investors to brace for the potential of a Fed hike, rather than cuts that have been largely priced in. Depreciation pressure on the Chinese currency looks set to persist.
Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong is predicting political turmoil, civilian unrest, war and a big economic downturn in 2024 in a new report called“The Year from Political Hell.”
It’s not just a US election year, but it is an election year for more than half of the world. This is a global phenomenon which no one can be sure of the outcome.
Armstrong explains, “This is not just the United States election. This is what you hear on the news locally…”
” However, step outside this country, and, for example, Indonesia just voted in a leftist government. You have the EU going for elections. You have on May 2nd all the local elections in Britian. You have Russian elections on May 7th. 60% of the world is going to the polls in 2024 to vote for a new government. You might as well throw them into a tumbler, shake well and see what comes out. I mean it’s all over the place.”
On the war front, get ready for more mass killing, and don’t be surprised if it goes nuclear. Armstrong predicts,
“There will be nuclear weapons. The neocons keep telling people on Capitol Hill that Russia would never use a nuke because they know we would use them back. That is nonsense! If you are about ready to conquer somebody, and this is all they’ve got left, they are pushing the button…
These people, all they want is war. They don’t care. They really do not care. They don’t care about the economy. They don’t care about anything.”
Armstrong says the coming war will make the economy “crash in 2024” as people get scared, spend a lot less and save a lot more. Armstrong says,
“What we are looking at is a contraction in spending because of uncertainty.
This is what these neocons are creating, and they don’t want to listen to anybody, and it is just their agenda, and they don’t care what happens to the country…
We are looking for a contraction of 12% to 18%. GDP is not going to be rising, but you are going to find inflation still rising.”
Armstrong also says to look for “a rebellion in government debt” as people lose faith in governments around the world. This rebellion in government issued debt will include US Treasuries, according to Armstrong. This means interest rates will continue to trend upward and not downward.
On volatility in the markets, Armstrong predicts, “Look for volatility to start around July, and there may be some false flags too.”
Armstrong continues to say Trump is still looking like he can “win in a landslide in 2024,” but expect the Deep State to pull every dirty trick in the book to keep him out of office. Armstrong points out,
“If Trump gets back in power, they are all fired. . . . They know they are losing power. Instead of reforming and doing the right thing, they clamp down and they think they can retain power by pressing us even more. Sorry, but that’s what creates revolution.”
In closing, Armstrong says, “Pretty much everything is going wrong for the Deep State. . . . confidence in government has collapsed everywhere.”
This is what makes the Deep State Dems, RINOs and Neocons very dangerous.
By the way, Armstrong says he would be a buyer of physical gold to hold as a core asset.
There is much more in the 1-hour and 4-minute interview.
In Trading, “The Narrower Your Focus, The Tighter Your Timing, The More Likely You’ll Lose”
By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
Top Down
Ten percent of endowments are run by top-down macro guys,” said Lone Star, one of the top-performing endowment CIOs. “We hunt for ten-year trends, gale force tailwinds, and position our portfolios around those,” he said. “Getting the macro right allows me to make a lot of mistakes and still win.” The top-down macro approach requires a far smaller investment team than the ‘best-manager’ approach and the ‘best-ideas’ approach of endowment management. “We run our money without any specific targets for an asset class, a region, or anything else. And I can beat the benchmarks by 500-600bps.”
“I have infinite-life capital, so I don’t need to be right on timing,” said Lone Star. “The narrower your focus, the tighter your timing, the more likely you’ll lose,” he explained. “The broader and longer your view, the more likely you’ll win.” Indeed.
“And if you believe in the random walk, then a drunk person will not always stumble left. A bearish person will not always make money being max short, and a bullish person won’t get rich by always being leveraged long. So, you lean against extremes, trade around your themes. And compound.”
“Oil is going to get tight over the coming five years,” said Lone Star. “If you look at the demand curves, the decline curves, we’re missing 3-5mm barrels per day out a few years,” he said. “The kinds of tailwinds I look for are all about supply — you can’t bring enough new supply online in time for rising demand. Right now, investors are unwilling to fund sufficient new oil supply,” he said. “Semiconductors. We’re looking at trough earnings and trough values. Ask yourself, how many semiconductors will the world need in ten years? The answer is a lot.”
“AI will make the internet’s impact look like child’s play,” said Lone Star. “Who’s going to win?” he asked, rhetorically. “Everyone. That’s who. Maybe it’ll take 5-7 years, but everyone wins here,” he said. “People tell me corporate margins are too high, but I see AI as pushing them up another 2-3 percent. Multiply that by a 20x PE and stocks should be 40-60% higher just on that,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s straight up. We could see wild moves. We will. But it’s why we haven’t had a dollar of uninvested cash in our portfolio for the past year.”
Anecdote
“This is a thinking job,” said Lone Star. “It’s not a doing job,” continued one of America’s best-performing endowment CIOs. “It’s a job for people who pull on strings to see where they lead.” I smiled. “We screen for people with a natural curiosity and an interest in puzzles,” he explained. “Because, this game is a puzzle that’s always changing.” When I started One River in 2013, Lone Star had taken the reins of one of America’s worst performing endowments. He’s been in the Top-5 for the past 1yr, 3yrs, 5yrs running. “I surround myself with a tight group of the top thinkers across a range of disciplines, best in class types, and we hunt for opportunities, themes, and commit capital together, make concentrated bets.” Back in March and April of 2020, when One River’s long vol strategies were surging, he hit the ATM hard, pulling cash from our funds every Friday, redeploying that capital into deeply distressed securities. That’s how you compound at extraordinary rates.
“I’ve got a few deep distress guys, top-down guys, volatility experts, equity guys, credit, macro thinkers,” he said. “At any given point in time, I have $1mm with probably half my managers, and a couple billion deployed to the others.” As the investment opportunity set shifts, those allocations swing. “A lot of people in my seat have huge teams who scour the world, meeting thousands of managers, and they think that kind of work is how they’ll outperform. No doubt, they can find the best manager in Pakistan,” he said. “In general, those kinds of investors don’t think they can make money in markets, but I do,” said Lone Star. “So I spend my time with a small team, internal and external, thinking, hunting, searching the markets for things to own that other investors don’t yet realize they’ll need to buy.”
San Francisco’s Elections Commission has, for what is believed to be a first time in history, appointed a non-U.S. citizen, who isn’t legally allowed to vote, to serve as an official.
The officer, Kelly Wong, was sworn in on Wednesday, according to local news outlet KQED. It reported that Ms. Wong, an immigrant rights advocate, is a native of Hong Kong who arrived in the United States in 2019 for graduate studies.
She was sworn in by Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin during a ceremony at San Francisco City Hall after winning unanimous support from the board.
“This appointment is a milestone for all immigrant and marginalized communities throughout SF,” Ms. Wong said in a LinkedIn post on Thursday. “Representation matters: thousands of immigrants living in the city hold stakes in politics and there’s no better way to have us be represented than to serve in leadership positions.”
“I am deeply committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of immigration status, has a seat at the table in shaping the future of our city.”
The appointment of a non-citizen to city boards, commissions, and advisory bodies was made possible in a 2020 vote, which saw voters pass the proposal by lawmakers to remove the standing requirement that candidates seeking office hold U.S. citizenship.
Mr. Peskin at the ceremony on Wednesday applauded Ms. Wong’s activism, saying, “I’m very impressed by her commitment to enfranchising people who rarely vote, to educating people about the voting process, and to bring in noncitizens and get them the tools they need as they become citizens,” he told KQED.
The former resident of Hong Kong, which now belongs to China and recently saw masspro-democracyprotests over the people’s lack of true electoral representation, said she hopes to improve immigrant and non-English voter engagement in her new home city of San Francisco, which has a ranked-choice voting system. She also told KQED that one of her priorities would be to put resources into better translations of voter materials.
“I’ve seen how language and cultural barriers prevent immigrants with limited English proficiency from fully exercising their right to vote,” Ms. Wong said.
Ms. Wong will now join six other members of the civilian-led commission, whose job it is to oversee policy and operations for the city’s Department of Elections.
As all member roles are unpaid, Ms. Wong said she would also continue her work for progressive advocacy group Chinese for Affirmative Action—a non-government organization founded in 1969 that is focused on protecting the “civil and political rights of Chinese Americans and to advance multiracial democracy in the United States,” the group says on its website.
She has worked for the group since 2022.
Chinese for Affirmative Action in 2016 supported other progressive advocacy efforts to further liberalize voting access, lobbying the government to change the law to allow non-citizens to vote on school board elections if their child attends a school in the district. Their efforts succeeded after challenges in the state’s courts.
Ms. Wong thanked City of San Francisco’s Immigrant Rights Commissioner Sarah Souza—who arrived in the United States as an illegal immigrant child and was the first of her kind in California appointed to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee—for her successful campaign in 2020 to change the law and allow non-citizens to serve on local commissions and advisory boards.
“Without Sarah’s advocacy and perseverance, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to represent immigrant voices and contribute to shaping the future of our communities,” Ms. Wong said in her post.
“To all immigrants in SF: I hope my appointment to the Elections Commission serves as a beacon of hope, showing that change is possible and your voices matter in policymaking. If I can do it, you can too.”
Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, also congratulated Ms. Wong.
He told KQED, “I’m hoping there will be a day where it won’t be as newsworthy that you have someone who’s an immigrant and a noncitizen involved in helping make the city run better, especially in a city where such a large percentage of the community is immigrants.”
Fox 10 Phoenix reports that a 23-year-old man, freshly out of jail, hijacked a tractor-trailer loaded with exotic sports cars, telling law enforcement after he was caught, he simply needed a ride.
According to the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department in Phoenix, Arizona, the suspect, Isaiah Walker, “assaulted and robbed” a truck driver at a Willcox Loves Truck Stop.
“Walker grabbed the victim and threw him from the cab,” the sheriff’s department wrote on Facebook.
The suspect then “entered the vehicle, locked the door, stole the vehicle, and drove it from the parking lot,” the sheriff’s department continued, adding the truck was hauling ten Chevrolet C8 Corvettes with an estimated value above $1.25 million.
More from the sheriff’s department, describing the chase like a scene from the violent video game ‘Grand Theft Auto’:
A deputy from the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department located the stolen vehicle near Fort Grant Road and Browns Market where the officer attempted to stop the vehicle, which failed to yield to the deputy’s emergency lights and sirens. The stolen vehicle began driving recklessly which caused vehicles to leave the roadway. As the stolen vehicle approached North Fort Grant Road and County Line Road, the vehicle turned onto County Line Road and stopped.
Mr. Walker was taken into custody by the Deputy and a Willcox Police Officer, who provided Mr. Walker with his Miranda Rights and interviewed him on the scene.
Following his arrest, Walker explained that his motive for hijacking the truck was not to steal the Corvettes. Instead, he stated he was looking for a way to get home after being released from jail.
Mr. Walker admitted to stealing the vehicle and advised that the Corvettes were not the reason and that he needed a truck to get home as he had just been released from prison. Mr. Walker was booked into the Cochise County Jail for multiple felony charges including Robbery, 11 counts of Theft of Means of Transportation, and Felony Theft. -sheriff
This nonsense reminds us of the time that radical leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defended shoplifters as ‘hungry’ people seeking bread.
Common sense ‘law and order’ must be reinforced nationwide as disastrous social justice policies have only emboldened criminals.
In a world of populist policies, the notion of taxing billionaires to alleviate the financial burdens of the middle class stands as a tempting narrative. Advocates tout it as the quintessential solution to income inequality, promising a redistribution of wealth that lifts the masses from their fiscal woes. However, this narrative, so alluring in its simplicity, crumbles upon closer examination, revealing a multitude of complexities and pitfalls that belie its benefits.
Central to the fallacy of taxing billionaires lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of government spending and deficits. Proponents of this approach often overlook the inconvenient truth that as most governments increase spending even when tax receipts rise, deficits soar to unprecedented heights, burdening future generations with a mountain of debt and always increasing taxes for the middle class.
Taxing the rich is the door that leads to more taxes for all of us. The case of the United States is evident. No tax revenue measure is going to wipe out an annual two trillion dollar deficit. Therefore, the government announces a large tax hike for the wealthy and disguises it with more taxes for everybody and higher inflation, which is a hidden tax.
The notion that taxing billionaires will miraculously alleviate this fiscal strain is akin to applying plaster to a gaping wound—it does not even provide temporary relief, and it fails to address the underlying malaise.
A seminal paper by Alesina, Favero, and Giavazzi (2015) delves into the implications of government deficits on economic growth. The authors argue that persistent deficits not only crowd out private investment but also lead to higher interest rates, reduced confidence, and ultimately diminished economic growth. This underscores the importance of fiscal prudence in addressing long-term fiscal challenges and the evidence that tax hikes are not neutral.
Billionaires mostly hold their wealth in shares of their own companies. This is what is called “paper wealth.” However, they cannot sell those shares and if they lost them, their value would decline immediately.
The redistribution fallacy comes from three false ideas:
The first is the notion that billionaires do not pay taxes to begin with. The top one percent of income earners in the United States earned 22 percent of all income and paid 42 percent of all federal income.
The second error is believing that wealth is static—like a pie—and can be redistributed at will. Wealth is either created or destroyed. Confiscating the wealth of billionaires does not make the middle class or the poor richer. We should have learned that lesson from the numerous examples in history, from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union.
The third mistake is to believe that the economy is a sum-zero game where the wealth of one person is the loss of another. That is simply false because wealth is not “there.” It must be created through an exercise where all parties win in exchange for cooperation.
The world must strive to create more wealth, not limit those who generate it.
Consider the recent clamour for increased government intervention and spending, particularly in the wake of global crises. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments all over the world to enact a flurry of fiscal stimuli, ostensibly intended to soften the blow of the economic fallout. Yet, as the dust settles, we find ourselves grappling not only with the immediate ramifications of increased government spending but also with the long-term consequences of ballooning deficits as well as persistent inflation.
Who came out as the loser of the redistribution and stimulus frenzy of the past decade? The middle class. It has been destroyed by persistent inflation created by printing money without control, rising debt and deficits and constantly bloating government size in the economy, which in turn creates two taxes for the middle class and the poor: inflation and rising indirect taxes.
Critics of this approach have long warned of the dangers of irresponsible government spending. Taxing billionaires will not stop this trend of excessive bureaucracy and irresponsible administration of public services; in fact, it may accelerate it, as we have seen in so many countries, and certainly will not reduce the tax wedge on ordinary citizens.
History is replete with cautionary tales of nations brought to their knees by unchecked fiscal excesses. From hyperinflation to sovereign debt crises, the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility are manifold and far-reaching. And yet, in the face of mounting pressure to “tax the rich,” policymakers seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, heedless of the inevitable consequences.
But the fallacy of taxing billionaires extends beyond the realm of fiscal policy—it strikes at the very heart of economic prosperity. At its core, capitalism depends on investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation—all of which are at risk from excessive taxation. The narrative that vilifies billionaires as greedy hoarders of wealth overlooks their crucial role in driving economic growth and prosperity.
By focusing solely on redistributive measures, policymakers risk undermining the very foundations of prosperity upon which our economic system rests.
Moreover, the notion that taxing billionaires will somehow level the playing field and uplift the middle class is predicated on a flawed understanding of economic reality. In truth, the global mobility of capital renders such measures largely ineffective, as the ultra-wealthy can easily relocate to jurisdictions with more favourable tax regimes. This not only undermines the efficacy of taxing billionaires as a revenue-generating mechanism but also exacerbates the very inequalities it seeks to redress.
Indeed, the unintended consequences of excessively taxing the rich are manifold and far-reaching. From reduced investment and job creation to economic stagnation and decline, the repercussions of such policies are felt across society. And while the rhetoric of wealth redistribution may sound appealing in theory, the reality is far more sobering—a stagnant economy, diminished opportunities, and a dwindling standard of living for all.
So, where does this leave us? If taxing billionaires is not the panacea it purports to be, what alternatives exist to address income inequality and alleviate the burdens of the middle class? The answer lies not in punitive taxation but in prudent fiscal policy, targeted policies, and a renewed focus on fostering economic growth and prosperity for all.
Primarily, we must recognize that fiscal responsibility is not a luxury but a necessity. Governments must exercise restraint in their spending, prioritize efficiency and accountability, and resist the temptation to paper over fiscal deficits with ill-conceived tax hikes and money printing. Only through disciplined fiscal management can we hope to secure a prosperous future for generations to come.
Second, we must recognize the vital role that entrepreneurship and investment play in driving economic growth and prosperity. Rather than demonizing billionaires as the root of all evil, we should celebrate their contributions to society and create an environment that fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation. This means reducing regulatory barriers, incentivizing investment, and empowering individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial ambitions.
Finally, we must understand that opportunities provided to citizens, not the size of the government, are what define true progress. Rather than relying on the state to solve all our problems, we should empower individuals and communities to chart their own course to prosperity. This means investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, providing a safety net for those in need, and fostering a culture of self-reliance and personal responsibility.
In conclusion, the fallacy of taxing billionaires lies not in its intentions but in its execution. While the notion of redistributing wealth may sound appealing in theory, the reality is far more complex. By succumbing to the allure of punitive taxation, we risk stifling economic growth, undermining prosperity, and perpetuating the very inequalities we seek to redress. Only through prudent fiscal management, targeted interventions, and a renewed focus on fostering economic growth can we hope to build a future that is truly prosperous for all.
Socialism does not redistribute from the rich to the poor, but from the middle class to politicians.
The fallacy of massively taxing billionaires is another trick to promote socialism, which has never been about the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, but the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to politicians.
With improvements in medical care and living standards in many countries around the world, the 20th century saw a dramatic increase in life expectancy at birth.
While some of the most significant gains are apparent between 1900 and 1950, apart from the immediate effects of World War II, due to a variety of economic and political developments, even the past 50 years saw a steady uptick in the estimated lifespans of the world’s population. For example, the worldwide average lifespan of a person born in 1971 was 58, while in 2021, this number rose to 71, an increase of roughly 19 percent.
To guarantee better comparability and show a more varied picture, we used World Bank data for these two new years and calculated the three countries per continent with the biggest percentage change in life expectancy.
Bangladesh ranked first not only in Asia but the whole world. Life expectancy at birth in the Asian nation jumped from 26 in 1971 to 72 in 2021.
While this number is impressive, it coincides with an external factor decreasing the chance of a long life: the Bangladesh War of Independence of 1971 between Pakistan and Bengali nationalists, whose victory laid the groundwork for the foundation of Bangladesh. The year prior, people in East Pakistan, as it was then called, had a life expectancy of 43, which would mark a 40.6 percent increase compared with 2021.
Apart from Bangladesh, countries on the African and Asian continent, which in this definition includes the Arab peninsula, Turkey and Russia, exhibited the biggest percentage increases in life expectancy at birth, with the Americas coming in third due to increases in nations like Guatemala, El Salvador and Bolivia.
While the two biggest post-WW-II superpowers, the United States and Russia, then the USSR, only saw life expectancy increases of seven and two percent, respectively, some countries in post-war Europe also saw double-digit growth in this regard.
Malta and Luxembourg ranking second and third might be explained by the influx of high-net-worth individuals and their better access to medical care and other amenities. Portugal taking the top spot in Europe with a percentage increase of roughly 18 percent is harder to explain. Experts cite a variety of factors like increased political stability since the ratification of its constitution in 1976, leaving the European Free Trade Association it co-founded in 1960 for the European Economic Community in 1986 together with Spain, and the country’s climate, diet and communal lifestyle contributing to overall better health.
