Economia Etica Italiano Politica

Socialisti? Comunisti? Invidiosi!

Michael Shermer scrive sul Los Angeles Times:

“Preferiresti guadagnare $50,000 all’anno mentre gli altri ne guadagnano $25,000 oppure $100,000 all’anno quando gli altri ne ricevono $250,000? Ipotizza per il momento che non ci siano variazioni di prezzi nei due casi.

Sorprendentemente – incredibilmente, infatti – recenti studi mostrano che la maggior parte delle persone sceglie la prima opzione; vogliono cioe’ guadagnare il doppio degli altri, anche se cio’ significa guadagnare la meta’ di quanto avrebbero potuto. Quanta irrazionalita’ c’e’ in quel comportamento?”

E quindi adesso abbiamo le prove che il Socialismo (e il Comunismo, evidentemente) inteso come il credere che le societa’ umane debbano essere “giuste ed eque” significa piu’ che altro assicurarsi che nessuno guadagni piu’ di te.

C’e’ quindi poco da meravigliarsi del fatto che le “economie socialiste” non abbiano mai arricchito alcuna popolazione: l’obiettivo di tutti era…fare in modo che nessuno volasse piu’ in alto degli altri!

Economics English Ethics Political Economy Politics Sociology

Research Shows Socialism Is About Envy

Michael Shermer on the Los Angeles Times

“Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000? Assume for the moment that prices of goods and services will stay the same.

Surprisingly — stunningly, in fact — research shows that the majority of people select the first option; they would rather make twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as they could otherwise have. How irrational is that?”

And so it is shown that Socialism (American Liberalism) as the belief that societies should be fair is basically about making sure nobody earn more than you do.

No wonder “socialist economies” were unable to make the people rich: everybody’s goal was to bring everybody else down

AGW Omniclimate Science Sun

Landscheidt, Astrology…and Totalitarianism

Theodore Landscheidt was a well-known, controversial figure in climatology circles (he died in 2004). The controversy arose from his conviction that the Earth’s climate is driven…by the Sun (the shock! the horror!): not much popularity there, among proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

One particularly nasty “accusation” has been that Landscheidt was an astrologer. He even published a book on planetary harmonies.

But is that sufficient to throw all his work to the dustbin of science? Of course not.

The fact that Landscheidt believed or didn’t in one type of astrology or another is in fact immaterial to his climate-related work, as long as that work is based on purely physical computations.

And he did!

Otherwise we should dismiss the notion that DNA is a double-helix only because James Watson has said something very silly. Not to mention throwing away electronics as we know it (radios, PCs and all) given the passion for eugenics by Nobel Physics Prize Laureate William Shockley.

The practice of poo-pooing somebody’s work based on one or the other traits of his personality is a sign of a losing argument, or of a totalitarian one.