Aggregator
Bo Bichette’s breakout gave Mets reason to celebrate — and maybe to hope
Christian Pulisic reveals what led to surprise second-half benching in USMNT opener
Bo Bichette lives up to his word to power Mets’ win over rival Braves
Tom Cruise, Jaxson Dart among celebs taking in USMNT’s World Cup 2026 opener
Health influencer tragically gunned down during Bay Area robbery
Jalen Brunson isn’t afraid of the massive Knicks moment that awaits him in Game 5
Tren De Aragua leader killed in US airstrike, Trump says
Roki Sasaki, Dodgers get roughed up by White Sox with Shohei Ohtani out
Jayson Tatum reveals how he’s getting through watching Knicks in NBA Finals
How Folarin Balogun’s accidental USA eligibility created World Cup hero
Yankees’ Blue Jays problems persist in ugly end to win streak
A Villainous Blueprint For Managed Poverty
Authored by Veronique de Rugy via The Eoch Times,
Writer and philosopher Ayn Rand was often accused of inventing cartoonish villains.
Rogues like Ellsworth Toohey in “The Fountainhead” would scheme to seize the global economy’s commanding heights in pursuit of a distorted sense of justice.
But the people who hold such ideas don’t just appear in cartoons or in Rand’s novels.
Enter Thomas Piketty and company.
In early June, Piketty - the French economist whose work on inequality has made him something of a rock star even while being serially challenged for methodological errors, data imputations and cherry-picked baselines - and his large team unveiled what can only be described as a villainous plan.
It’s a comprehensive program for global managed decline dressed up in the language of climate justice and equality.
The plan is far too ambitious for most nations to accept.
But given the influence of Piketty and his circle of economists on U.S. wealth taxes and prominent global policy proposals, we should take its underlying ideas seriously.
Piketty’s plan would cap GDP per capita in wealthy countries at roughly $69,000, far less than America’s current $94,430.
The plan would also limit annual global economic growth to between 0 percent and 0.5 percent. Monsieur Piketty would allot only 0.115 percent annual growth to the U.S, whose GDP has expanded by more than 3 percent on average since 1930. This would hurt not just the billionaires but every American.
The plan would mandate an international three-day work week and reduce construction activity by 70 percent, manufacturing by 87 percent and even leisure-sector activity by 58 percent.
There would be massive and punishing trade actions against noncompliant countries.
It envisions a “Global Justice Fund” financed not by taxing carbon but by global wealth and income taxes.
This fund would be 20 times the size of current development aid and would be administered by a new international bureaucracy answerable to heaven knows who.
Don’t be fooled by Piketty’s training as an economist.
This is not economic thinking. Consider the utter inconsistency of relying on a vast stock of wealth (mostly from the U.S.) for redistribution while suffocating long-term growth to near zero. Much of the value of the assets needed to finance this scheme would be destroyed. It is also disqualifying to claim that sub-Saharan Africa will grow at 4 percent if we crush the economies that provide the capital for its investments and buy its exports.
Let’s ask the uncomfortable question: What would it require to enforce Piketty’s plan?
About this matter, he is conveniently vague.
Confiscating something on the order of 10 percent of world GDP and redirecting it through a newly created supranational body does not happen by asking nicely.
You cannot restructure the global economy at that scale without a coercive apparatus that dwarfs anything in human history.
The mechanism must be authoritarian.
It would require a world government with the power to tell billions of people which jobs they may and may not hold, what they may build, what they may eat and how many hours they are permitted to work.
And to what end?
“Climate change” is an insufficient answer when Piketty’s entire edifice is built on a discredited foundation. The report relies on a baseline from the “RCP8.5” climate scenario that projects Earth warming by as much as 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. But last month, the UN’s own climate panel officially retired RCP8.5 (always a high-end estimate) as “implausible.” A more central projection is around 2.7 degrees Celsius. Replies to Piketty’s X feed pointed this out immediately. His response, as far as anyone can tell, has been silence.
That leaves the inequality argument. Worldwide income inequality is nearing a 150-year low, but Piketty insists that radical redistribution of wealth is essential for the Global South. And where have billionaires and wealth been popping up fastest in recent decades? Embarrassingly, data from Piketty’s World Inequality Database confirms that it’s in South and Southeast Asia and East Asia. These are the exact Global South regions that have spent recent decades rescuing hundreds of millions of people from poverty through market-directed economic growth.
A core confusion of the degrowth ideology is its conflation of inequality and poverty, in fact two very different things. Reducing inequality by making everyone poorer is not a victory for the poor. The billions of people still lagging in the global income distribution have one realistic path out: growth. Dynamic, market-driven, property-rights-protected growth is the only proven path to prosperity. It’s also the path to environmental improvement, which costs money.
Degrowth is the ultimate luxury belief.
It’s dreamed up by tenured professors in Paris and progressive think-tank pundits in Brussels.
These are people who already have high incomes, comfortable apartments, generous health care and pensions and whose ideas would pull up the ladder on billions of poor people.
Rand’s villains always insisted they were acting for the greater good. They always had elaborate plans. They always needed just a little more power to make it work. And they thought little about the terrible burdens their plans would impose on ordinary people.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 23:25Mike Brown has one more Knicks question to answer with title in reach
If Berkeley students can’t read, K-12 schools need remediation
Knicks fans scramble to find way to San Antonio for Game 5 after storm causes travel chaos
Giants pitcher Landen Roupp wears Pride Night hat with biblical verse
USMNT met the World Cup moment in dominant win over Paraguay
These Are The Hardest Languages For English Speakers To Learn
For English speakers, learning Spanish or Italian can take less than a year. Reaching the same level of proficiency in Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, or Arabic may require nearly four times as much study.
This wide gap reflects how closely a language resembles English in its vocabulary, grammar, sounds, and writing system.
This visualization, created by Julie R. Peasley via Visual Capitalist, ranks languages by difficulty using categories and study-time estimates from Effective Language Learning and Rosetta Stone, which reference Foreign Service Institute-style benchmarks.
Which Languages Are Easiest to Learn for English Speakers?Languages are generally easier to learn when they share familiar grammar, vocabulary, sounds, or writing systems. That’s why many Category I languages, including Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, and Swedish, are considered relatively approachable.
The data table below shows the difficulty rankings and estimated learning time for 70 different languages:
Language Category Time to learn 🇿🇦🇳🇦 Afrikaans I 24-30 weeks 🇩🇰 Danish I 24-30 weeks 🇳🇱🇧🇪 Dutch I 24-30 weeks 🇫🇷🇧🇪🇨🇭🇨🇦 French I 24-30 weeks 🇮🇹🇨🇭 Italian I 24-30 weeks 🇳🇴 Norwegian I 24-30 weeks 🇵🇹🇧🇷 Portuguese I 24-30 weeks 🇷🇴🇲🇩 Romanian I 24-30 weeks 🇪🇸🇲🇽🇦🇷 Spanish I 24-30 weeks 🇸🇪 Swedish I 24-30 weeks 🇩🇪🇦🇹🇨🇭 German II 36 weeks 🇭🇹 Haitian Creole II 36 weeks 🇮🇩 Indonesian II 36 weeks 🇲🇾🇧🇳 Malay II 36 weeks 🇹🇿🇰🇪 Swahili II 36 weeks 🇦🇱🇽🇰 Albanian III 44 weeks 🇪🇹 Amharic III 44 weeks 🇦🇲 Armenian III 44 weeks 🇦🇿 Azerbaijani III 44 weeks 🇧🇩🇮🇳 Bengali III 44 weeks 🇧🇬 Bulgarian III 44 weeks 🇲🇲 Burmese III 44 weeks 🇨🇿 Czech III 44 weeks 🇦🇫 Dari III 44 weeks 🇪🇪 Estonian III 44 weeks 🇮🇷 Farsi III 44 weeks 🇫🇮 Finnish III 44 weeks 🇬🇪 Georgian III 44 weeks 🇬🇷🇨🇾 Greek III 44 weeks 🇮🇱 Hebrew III 44 weeks 🇮🇳 Hindi III 44 weeks 🇭🇺 Hungarian III 44 weeks 🇮🇸 Icelandic III 44 weeks 🇰🇿 Kazakh III 44 weeks 🇰🇭 Khmer III 44 weeks Kurdish III 44 weeks 🇰🇬 Kyrgyz III 44 weeks 🇱🇦 Lao III 44 weeks 🇱🇻 Latvian III 44 weeks 🇱🇹 Lithuanian III 44 weeks 🇲🇰 Macedonian III 44 weeks 🇲🇳 Mongolian III 44 weeks 🇳🇵 Nepali III 44 weeks 🇦🇫🇵🇰 Pashto III 44 weeks 🇵🇱 Polish III 44 weeks 🇷🇺 Russian III 44 weeks 🇷🇸🇭🇷🇧🇦🇲🇪 Serbo-Croatian III 44 weeks 🇱🇰 Sinhala III 44 weeks 🇸🇰 Slovak III 44 weeks 🇸🇮 Slovenian III 44 weeks 🇸🇴 Somali III 44 weeks 🇮🇳 Telugu III 44 weeks Tibetan III 44 weeks 🇮🇳🇱🇰🇸🇬 Tamil III 44 weeks 🇹🇯 Tajiki III 44 weeks 🇵🇭 Tagalog III 44 weeks 🇹🇭 Thai III 44 weeks 🇹🇷🇨🇾 Turkish III 44 weeks 🇹🇲 Turkmen III 44 weeks 🇺🇦 Ukrainian III 44 weeks 🇵🇰🇮🇳 Urdu III 44 weeks 🇺🇿 Uzbek III 44 weeks 🇻🇳 Vietnamese III 44 weeks 🇿🇦 Xhosa III 44 weeks 🇿🇦 Zulu III 44 weeks 🇸🇦🇪🇬🇦🇪 Arabic IV 88 weeks 🇭🇰🇲🇴 Cantonese Chinese IV 88 weeks 🇨🇳🇹🇼🇸🇬 Mandarin Chinese IV 88 weeks 🇯🇵 Japanese IV 88 weeks 🇰🇷🇰🇵 Korean IV 88 weeksOne of the most striking findings is the size of the gap between the easiest and hardest languages. While Spanish or French can often be learned in 24–30 weeks, mastering Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, or Arabic may require roughly 88 weeks of study.
Many Category I languages use the Latin alphabet and share vocabulary roots with English through Germanic or Romance-language connections.
This may also help explain why European languages often rank highly in language-learning apps and why Duolingo’s most popular languages globally include several widely taught European options.
What Makes a Language Harder to Learn?Category III languages tend to have greater linguistic distance from English. This can include unfamiliar grammar structures, new alphabets, or pronunciation patterns that require more time to master.
For example, languages like Russian, Greek, Hindi, Turkish, and Vietnamese all fall into this category. Some use different scripts, while others introduce grammatical systems that are less intuitive for native English speakers.
The “Super-Hard” LanguagesCategory IV languages are considered exceptionally difficult for English speakers. This group includes Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean.
Many of these languages present multiple learning hurdles simultaneously. Mandarin and Cantonese require mastery of tones, Japanese combines several writing systems, Korean introduces a unique alphabet and grammar structure, and Arabic uses an entirely different script. Together, these differences significantly increase the time needed to reach professional proficiency.
To learn more about language use across the U.S., check out Mapped: America’s Most-Spoken Languages After English and Spanish on the Voronoi app.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 23:00