Good video, but even if the top 1% of income earners is transient, what about the top 1% of overall wealth owners? I'd bet that demographic is more stable. (eg. If Bill Gates didn't earn anything this year, he'd still be in the top 1% of overall wealth owners). What proportion of wealth is owned by the top 1% of the wealthy (not just the top 1% of income earners)? The democratic congressman's excerpted argument was weak, but there's more to be investigated about this issue...
Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit. Maybe they are in the top 1% because they EARNED it Bernie you fucking commie. Or inherited it it doesn't matter. You aren't rich because YOU aren't rich not because somebody made you un-rich. You clown
The rich have become rich thanks to the workers, consumers and taxpayers of this nation. Without them, the necessary labour to produce goods and services, the necessary demand for them and the necessary infrastructure to allow for cheap transportation of labour and goods to and from markets wouldn't exist.
If the rich do not share their wealth with those who helped them accumulate it, they themselves will suffer as a result of increased tensions and falling demand.
@atosafi1 Well comrade the workers got paid a WAGE. That is what they get. Nobody has to share ANYTHING that is THEIRS. You fucking communist. Your argument is species in the extreme because you don't have a right to a job and once you work a job you serve at the discretion of you employer not the other way around. What fucking planet are you from?
@bnsaints The fact of the matter is that real wages in this nation have been stagnant and even in decline for the last few decades, and the share of wages in the national income has declined across the board, even in China of all places.
The point is that the rich allow their greed to get in the way of everyone's long-term interest. They do not see that they themselves benefit from a unionized workforce and a welfare state, since it leads to increased purchasing power and consumer confidence.
@atosafi1 All of what you're saying is horse shit but even if true SO WHAT. In capitalism the "rich" are not required to "share their wealth" as it is THEIRS. Everybody's lon term interests are the responsibility of the individual not the wealthy to redistribute their wealth. My advice is go to china Comrade.
@bnsaints The problem is that you see progressive taxation as a punishment for being successful, when redistribution of wealth is in fact the basis for economic development. It leads to increased purchasing power and consumer confidence, which leads to rising demand, which leads to increased income to private and public sector, which results in private and public investment in hiring employees and expanding production and thereby to falling unemployment and rising economic activity.
@atosafi1 Ok Paul Krugman lol. Wealth redistribution has never WORKED in history. Redistribution is EXACTLY that. STEALING something that doesn't belong to you and giving it and its benefit to somebody else. You can call it "progressive taxation" it is THEFT. I find the notion of redistribution to be laughable, how can something be RE-distributed to you if it wasn't yours and was not DISTRIBUTED to you in the fist place lol. If ten of us had a combination of 100 bucks and all pooled it together
@bnsaints Let's look at the keynesian, social democratic Golden Age(1951-1973), average global growth lay at 4.8%, global inflation at 3.9% and unemployment in France and Britain lay at 1.2% and 1.6%. We experienced 38 financial crises.
Compare this to the neoliberal Washington Consensus(1979-present), average global growth has been at 3.2%, global inflation marginally lower at 3.2% and unemployment in France and Britain has been at 9.5% and 7.4%. We've experienced over 150 financial crises.
@atosafi1 As you can see, a regulated, mixed economy is superior to the market fundamentalist model of today. Employment was at its highest, unemployment at its lowest, growth at its best and equality at its greatest during the Golden Age. The world did not experience a single year with less than 3% global growth, and thereby not a single major global recession, and had the world grown at the rate of the Golden Age for these last few decades, the world economy would be 50% greater today
@atosafi1 Ok when you are done quote mining your UC Berkley freshman economics book then maybe you can go and actually look up some facts. The US did not experience 38 Financial crises since 1900 until today let alone from 1951-1973. Additionally, EVERY crisis we had was presided over by DEMOCRATS. The great depression, the carter years, Obama, LBJ. I'm guessing you are using some nut job hippie definition of "crises" in you evaluation process. You are not a critical thinker, you have shown
@bnsaints I said the world, not the US. The data was compiled by Robert Skidelsky, a conservative, social democratic, economic historian who wrote the biography on Keynes and is a professor at the University of Warwick.
It appears you do not want to have a debate, I don't know what you're doing on a Thomas Sowell video since he was obviously not content with spewing out verbal diarrhea and ad hominem-arguments.
@atosafi1 One can not be a Conservative/social democratic. You are not intelligent enough to debate me, you give away your youth and inexperience in the choice of words you keep making
Yeah, blame Roosevelt for the depression when the crises occurred under Hoover. Blame Obama for a crisis unleashed under Bush. All the while expressing ad hominem several times over.
@JokersAce0 Go learn history kid. HOOVER did NOTHING to trigger the stock market crash. Roosevelt CAMPAIGNED on fixing the problem, not only did he not but he exacerbated them. The depression stopped by our WWII production. Roosevelt destroyed america, we still see the damage he inflicted today. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc... You're obviously an ignorant college kid trying to sound smart
you're cute with your ad hominem and assumptions. fact is that Hoover started many programs and could in fact be considered as starting the new deal. besides, government spending is what brought america out of the great depression regardless of whether or not it was spending on social projects or the military. you remind me of friedman, who argued against government intervention when in fact he depended on the government for his living through the depression
@JokersAce0 Please go back and read a History book. Your rather ignorant and uniformed evaluation is humorous an incorrect. The military production was to SUPPLY our allies at first. Comparing Government spending on the military to government social programs is absurd. Especially when at a bare minimum military spending generates REVENUE. We may well have spent as a government to produce military hardware which we then SOLD. What did/do social programs do? They SUCK MONEY. Like liberals do lol
oh yeah, since i must go down to your degenerate level i'll just say that you are obviously an old man who didn't learn anything academically during his youth and instead praises the glories of being an uneducated idiot all the while arguing all day on youtube against his juniors just so he thinks his voice has any say in the world
@Joker It is obvious you're young. From the cutting and pasting right from a freshman economics book from Berkeley to your statements which lack critical thought, originality or intelligence. Your postings scream ignorant you college kid. I have two degrees and a damn sight more life experience and historical knowledge than you do. Maybe if you spent more time LEARNING the facts and less time cutting and pasting other left wing assholes ramblings you might not look like the guy from Good Will
Yeah bullshit, I knew this was gonna result in a flame fest, I shouldn't have bothered arguing with a fucking moron whose argument is based on his insults more than facts. You're the bigest hypocrite I've had the displeasure of coming across, insulting me as some sort of college kid whose trying to figure out the world when I am fact not a college kid. you can't make a difference between military & social spending. Not even the lendlease act created revenue, give me the next insult.
@JokersAce0 I don't need to insult you, your reaction validates what I said otherwise you wouldn't have thrown a tantrum missy. You're some overly educated snot nosed collge kid or 20 something Marin county douchebag who has managed to drop every liberal catch phrase and bullshit trump card in you intellectually vapid postings. You're a classic liberal clown shoes whose only answer for everything is capitalism sucks tax the rich. Go change you Che Gueverra Tee-shirt cry baby and sip you latte.
you're hilarious man, a grade A troll. if i was a classic liberal, I'd be Adam Smith. ZING! Thanks for saying I'm overly educated though, even though I have no college experience whatsoever. :D
@atosafi1 yourself to be some quixotic college student who is in love with some communist economics professor and you are regurgitating information that you have no concept of what it truly means. Run along and let the grown ups play kid.
@atosafi1 then it was redistributed so we each got 10 bucks a piece, SOMEBODY got dicked. Somebody gained money they didn't deserve and somebody lost money they didn't deserve to lose. It is unethical and two illogical. In other words it is the daily behavior of liberals in this country.
@451ianDragonist Michael Jackson, for many years, was a known Billionaire. He was never listed on the Fortune 400. Do you know why? Oprah Winfrey is a known Billionaire and she isn't on the list. The richest man in the world, Evelyn De Rothschilds isn't listed either. The answer to all these questions is because the list is highly flawed. Warren Buffett, for example, is worth approximately twice as much as what the list contends, and that's from his own statements.
as has already been argued, greed alone is not sufficient to become rich, it must also be accompanied with work. you can overnight go from being the most selfless man in the world to the greediest man in the world, and your income will not go up 1 dime unless you back this greed up with work.
A free market system is a great system. But as with any system, corruption can occur. Checks and balances must be established in order to have a level playing field. Does that mean everyone should/will earn the same income? No. It only means every plays by the same rules. The government should NOT try to run business, as itself as a business model is a calamity. Their role should be minimal but essential in ensuring a fruitful and sustainable market.
Makes me sad to see how old he is. Wish he would write some sort of magnum opus on econ besides his "Basic Econ" books. Like an in-depth intermediate level textbook.
what's your point? the top 1%, whether it is a transient class or not, should pay taxes on their income at a fair rate. and yes i would accuse entertainers of being greedy
@pat292 The top 1% are already taxed in a higher bracket than everyone else. That to me sounds unfair. Just because they are more productive they must pay a higher rate than everyone else?
@5382021 Well, productive does not = earnings, so no... But because they earn more they should pay a higher rate. And really, the top 1% is paying less in effective tax rate then most of recent history. The latest number say, that the top 1% pays an effective tax rate of 29.5% in 2007, where is most of the 90s that was 35% and that is a reduction of over 15%. And as the income gap between the top 1% and the average is massively increase, that percent paid should have gone up, not down.
@Loathomar 29.5% of the income of the top 1% is an enormous amount tax income for the government. The question you need to ask is this: if you increase tax rates on the single most mobile section of the community, will they just bend over, lube up and take it or will they instead, move to another tax jurisdiction which, judging by it's tax rates, wants their money more?
@docdamag Why is 29.5% federal tax for the top 1%? The UK has an effective top tax rate of 60%, but 29.5% is enormous? Clearly, there are no rich people in the UK then, right? Oh wait, there are tons of rich people in the UK. You logic fails, congrats.
@Loathomar So you'll raise the maximum amount of money by charging a 100% tax people who have "made enough money"? Simpleminded assumptions like yours are plain silly and not really useful for increasing tax revenue.
@docdamag That would be as retarded as saying the rich should be taxed 0%, while still getting all the benefits of the government. Really, it is always a question of where any tax system is on the Laffer curve. But saying the US tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 14% is too far on the Laffer curve is laughable, as all nations, many doing better then the US, have a far higher then the US.
I will never make more than 20,000 dollars. I stay where I am for life. It gets really grim. I don't understand why we're here in a modern society that doesn't "need" us.
Actually, the top 1% would in Thomas Sowell evidence mean that the 1% is a fluid state of constant influx of new comers. Given that you could be the in the top 1% with $340,000, however, the average top 1% is $960,000. Meaning you really aren't talking about the top 1% but more of the top .4%, or .3%. Given that, Financial inequality in the US is 42.7% which the 1% own in the US, which hasn't been broken down in the top .1%, or .2%, or .3%
Did anyone say that the 1 percent were perment. Uncle Tom Sowell tends to draw conclusions on something that not related to the topic at hand. Senility must be setting in on the Ole Uncle Tom Sowell.
@comptonproduction What conclusions? He just eloquently identified who makes up the top one percent. The only thing 'perment' here appears to be your condescending idiocy. Surprising that you found you way to this video on a Saturday morning when cartoons are being shown.
@comptonproduction Judging by your name, you're a fucking retard from the worst part of L.A., which is in the worst state in the country: CA. I live in CA, I would know. Get out of here, and learn how to spell.
If Capitalism was a computer program that was allowed to play out without any direct interference in its processes.... right before that program terminated the VAST majority of wealth would be in the hands of a very very small minority of people..... and unfortunately there would be no way to redistribute wealth once this event horizon is reached. Like any other economic system, Capitalism is flawed. In America the wealthy can manipulate politics to exploit this flaw. Therein lies the dilemma.
At the height of the Roman Empire the top 1% controlled 16% of the wealth. Today in the U.S. the 1% control 40% of the nation's wealth. Total net worth of the bottom 60% of the U.S. is less than Forbes 400 richest. The net worth of the six heirs of Walmart equals the bottom 30% of the country.
@mortald This is the flaw of pure Capitalism. It cannot sustain itself. Eventually a few individuals end up with all of the wealth and redistributing this wealth is no longer possible. The extremely wealthy are only a product of this flaw and should not be demonized. However it is the job of the government redistribute wealth via taxes etc, and to prevent collusion amongst wealthy individuals in politics and business. Being aware of the flaws of pure capitalism is not socialism.
@MrSamySara "However it is the job of the government redistribute wealth via taxes etc, and to prevent collusion amongst wealthy individuals in politics and business"
So, you mean the the politicians should not collude with wealthy individuals? You mean the very people the control the press, education, banks? You mean those people?
And you get to be a politician without money, press, and a network how? Challenge your opponent to a winner take all spelling Bee? A pie eating contest?
This 2011 Holiday season the top seven banks are expected to give record bonuses totaling $156 billion. Goldman Sachs compensation this year for its 38,900 workers averages to $362,862 per employee. Jaimie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, compensation last year came to $20.8 billion. That is an hourly wage of $10,400. 1.6 million children in the U.S. were homeless in 2010.
@cfarinho that is a childish understanding of capitalism. capitalism is simply the system of voluntary exchange. of course, money is the medium of exchange, but as such it exists to serve people. all animals are forced to produce in order to live. Capitalism is simply the economic freedom that allows one to trade their production for someone elses.
did they come down to the top 2 pc? Selling a house puts you on the top 1 pc? What a stupidity. The statistic, idiot, is that there's been a upward transfer of wealth for the past 30 years and it's fact. It means less money to spend for millions of people and wouls have halted the economy long ago if people had not gone into debt. And that is the real problem. Besides, what the hell is capitalism? A religion?
@cfarinho yes, let's blame capitalism for some people contracting debt than beyond their ability to pay. heck, they just wanted to live like the people who produce.
@fzqlcs what is capitalism? is that not a political sistem where the economy exist for money not for the people? that's what the word seems to imply.
@fzqlcs by the way, can you reasonably believe that an economy can work without money running trough it? and how will that happen if not through wages?
@fzqlcs Capitalism is flawed like any other economic system. It may be the best system out there but it can be blamed. You are a fool to think otherwise. Under pure capitalism, money is inevitability accumulated by a fraction of a fraction of a minority and cannot be redistributed, I call this the "event horizon". To counteract this fatal flaw we utilize programs and laws that many Republicans ignorantly refer to as Socialist. These are only measures to procure sustained Capitalism.
@MrSamySara "To counteract this fatal flaw we utilize programs and laws that many Republicans ignorantly refer to as Socialist"
So, your solution to the "fatal flaw" of capitalism that creates wealth, jobs, technology, medicine, arts, entertainment, and a better life style..Is to seize that wealth from the producers, give it to the crack-whore gov that creates nothing but only takes...so they can give it their lobbyist/special interest friends.
I've noticed over the years that left-wing types thrive by assigning individuals to and defining people to groups that they claim are enduring to be able to pit people against one another. They speak about children, the old, the poor, middle class, rich, the "1%" like people exist in these groups their whole lives and they are defined by it. Kids grow into adults, old people used to be young, people change socio-economic classes based on their own aspirations, decisions, and fortunes.
@stebecool critical theory teaches them to tag and label people that way.. the indoctrination starts in school slowly building up until their world view is warped
This is exactly what bothers me about this newly coined, meaningless icon - "the 1%". It doesn't refer to anything real. There's always going to be 1% of people who are the top 1% in terms of wealth, but to treat them as though they were some monolithic entity acting in unison is preposterous. Most millionaires did not inherit their wealth.
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a vulgar propagandist for that class.
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a vulgar propagandist for that class.
@counteringlies What a lot of nonsense. All he's talking about here is that slogan. That's the subject of this video. You say "forget about what you're talking about and talk about what I want you to talk about". And if the slogan is illegitimate, as you seem ready enough to concede, then why do you have a problem with this video? "Crony capitalism" is government interference in the economy - it's government by lobby. What it isn't is capitalism.
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
Earning money in a capitalist system is a sign of productivity and value given not "greed." He uses the wrong word. Senators are "greedy" -- they live off tax dollars of others and use them to buy votes while voting themselves gold-plated health care and pensions. That's greed. Watch their language. Don't accept it. They skew the debate with false buzzwords that tell lies and are unfair to facts. This guy has envy with a halo. Screw him. He deserves a swirly.
@DexterHaven49 Everybody is greedy and everybody would do the exact same thing were they a senator. Voter apathy and stupidity are the real problems with the American system.
@DexterHaven49 Senators don't actually earn that much money. Most are already independently wealthy and they run for office for the influence, not the pay check. Wealthy people only earn money by paying workers a fraction of the value of their production. Now that's greed.
@SnugglePuma I disagree. Senators get great health care, travel and expenses, plus a lifetime pension. Plus six figure salaries. For doing next to nothing. A cushy job. Business owners need to earn a profit to compensate for their idea to start the business, what to sell, where, at what price, with what marketing, etc. That's worth something. If workers don't like the pay rate, they can sell their labor elsewhere or start their own business. No one forces them to work for anyone. Labor for sale.
@DexterHaven49 Really, the six figure salary and health benefits are nothing compared to the value of the political influence members of congress have. Nobody runs for congress for the pay or benefits. These same people could earn many times what they make in congress as corporate CEOs. Your notion that workers "sell" their labor on a market is completely obsolete. Workers are at the mercy of their employer and when the job is done they are promptly ushered out the front door...
So what? YOu pay higher tax when you made the higher income. What's the idea behind this? Don't tax the first year? or the next? Another wacky reasoning they came up with...to avoid paying ..
Celebrities are like 2 per cent of the 1 per cent... and they really are outliers... business men aren't, people without much talent get compensations exceeding their marginal product. Carl Icahn adds ridiculous value to corporations just buying them, and reducing CEO compensation. Thomas Sowell has too much momentum to be credible... let go of sides... just observe and diagnose... people like Sowell diagnose beforehand and try to fit in the world into their little view
@yesman2079 We don't have a problem with the rich; we have a problem with bankers and businessmen taking taxpayer money in the form of bailouts by the govt and the federal reserve. Please explain to me how that's crucifixion.
@yesman2079 Actually, many people HAVE pointed out that celebrities are overpaid. The difference is that while Nick Cage may be overpaid he didn't cause a financial melt down that cost millions of people their jobs and homes. But rest assured brave yesman, when they do we'll be there to occupy Hollywood.
@yesman2079 Actors and musicians produce a product that people pay for. Very different from the banker, insurance company or wall street persons that cheat people out of their monies through checking fees, derivatives and failure to pay on claims owed.
Selling a product is commendable and provides for many to prosper. Ripping people off through the manipulation of the market and banking fees is disgusting and only makes those who do it richer.
@AtheistDaddy Wait, bankers cheat people out of money and actors and musicians don't??? Ever seen a Tom Cruise movie? Or Nicholas Cage? Have you listened to the radio lately. Contemporary entertainment is the biggest scam in history good sir!!!!!!! And fucking c'mon, not all bankers are bad. You sound jealous since you probably don't have a clue to make money.
@natazer I never said all bankers were bad. However, making and selling products (including entertainment) is what drives a market forward. Manipulating the stock market, holding people's money hostage in a bank (unregulated) and denying health coverage or refusing to pay out insurance is criminal. I have seen Raising Arizona and I loved it. You got me though, I'm jealous.
Also, fix your punctuation key. It's annoying to the reader.
@87thekang True - in application but when he said that he implied it's just fine for leftists like him to keep their own money/assets while taking assets of others at gunpoint (try 'voluntary compliance' like IRS calls it) IF you INTEND on giving to those assets to the "poor."
Sure, I was like most of you. Calling out the occupy movement as a movement of cry babies. Then one day, I accidentally spent 2 dollars over my credit card limit. Now a rational person would think that the limit was there as a theft countermeasure. As if the card would simply reject the transaction if the amount was over the limit. Well people, in the age of banking greed this is not a reality. In fact, the limit is there to charge you a 20$ fee if u go over. Support corp?. FUCK THAT!
@jakeel85 Well, that goes without saying. But you kinda missed the point here. Read the part where I say a good corp would use limits as a theft countermeasure and block the transaction.
@LongBow1600 pick a different bank then, or at least don't blame all of capitalism for policies of a few companies.
If you can't switch, realize that the banking industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries. Most of their historical profit sources have been made illegal or taken by the credit card companies. They used to maintain healthy leverage levels before banking regulations got as ridiculous as they are today. Not all regulations are bad, but despite their intentions,most are
@LongBow1600 said [[Well people, in the age of banking greed this is not a reality. In fact, the limit is there to charge you a 20$ fee if u go over. Support corp?. FUCK THAT!]]
That's the cost of you being too irresponsible to track your own money and credit. Get a CC with different terms if you don't like it. It's your fault for (a) going over your credit limit, and (b) not reading the terms of the contract you signed. If you are an adult & you really need a nanny state, then you're pathetic.
lc good word play but minority rights don't have anything to do with numbers but instead power. That is the actually definition. That's how a minority can actually be the majority of the population. Like the apartheid In South Africa. good day.
@therealallpro Dictionary definition of minority "The smaller number or part, esp. a number that is less than half the whole number." 1% are a minority. Good day.
Most people DO stay in the same income range their whole lives. Even at the top. 50% may fall out of the top 1% one year, (down to top 2-3%) then be back next year. Those are realistic fluctuations. And that is WHY there are "guenuinely wealthy" people, as stated. So set aside income and talk about wealth, which us cumulative income. 50% of the WEALTH is owned by 1%. People born into poverty, likewise, tend to stay there. This video is an excellent example of lying with statistics.
But wealth is also deceptive. What if you own a factory, which the IRS appraises at however many millions of dollars, which provides you with a modest, somewhat fluctuating income, so long as you devote part of your time and income to maintaining it? Are you really that much better off than, say, a high-paid engineer at your factory?
The same goes for a house. How much better off are you really than someone who rents an equivalent home? Is every home owner in -
More to the point, do we really want to use the tax system to encourage people to burn their wealth as quickly as possible, rather than to save and invest?
And perhaps even more fundamentally: why does someone who earns a lot of money owe more for the same services than someone who earns less? I realize the US isn't exactly a free market economy, but there's presumably still some element of social cooperation in the structure of production.
@brindlebriar Your facts ... aren't. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, the great majority of people in the bottom income quintile ill move up, more than half in about 6 years and some 30% of them will eventually reach the top income quintile. The key factor is typically age (younger - poorer). and those in the top 1% change even more frequently than you suggest, most, according to the IRS, reaching that level due to non-recurring windfalls. Fire your incompetent fact checker.
@brindlebriar when you're discussing economics with an economist, the more you disagree, the more you're wrong. The only reason for a person to stay in the same tax bracket for their life is they inherited wealth, or they're too stupid to budget according to their income, or too lazy to improve their situation. People from Sowell's generation used to get shit done when something was insufficient. They used to work HARD, now they just complain hard. My parents lived in a trailer. Not anymore.
This video requires thinking beyond what anyone at the occupy wall street protests is capable of. To get them to understand anything first you must say "i am not greedy" then you must say "i will give you everything you want". If some of them begin thinking and asking questions like "where does this stuff come from" or "how will YOU give me anything?" just ignore them and continue protesting. You libertarians think to friggin much, thats why u will never be popular...
@thebestsumoeva "Libertarians think too much"? I'll assume this was tongue in cheek. That, or the entire notion of "thinking" as it's ever been used has significantly changed.
It seems SOME of the people here are intent on "winning" and not on trying to relate to anyone, learn anything, or teach anything. Until you change your approach, you are not going to achieve anything other than making yourself and others angry. You have to try and understand each other's viewpoint and demonstrate your own. If the other guy is not willing to do that, it sohuld become apparent quickly, so in that case just ignore them and move on, it is hopeless.
Basically the top 1% is an overtly oppressed minority group being abused by the spoiled socialist Nazi middle and working classes. Oh yes the abuse that the 1% gets is INSANE, considering that they are our holy Job Creators and more importantly they are the "motor of the world," by abusing the 1% ur basically screwing urself dumbass socialists!!!
Also funny to see that you haven't found any new arguments since last time. Still the same shit.
Perhaps you should start by not calling individualists (and Rand) sociopaths. Maybe then people won't call Chomsky, the big government anarchist, your prophet.
@sheepOG You have obviously not read anything. And if I'm still making the same arguments it's either because you and others didn't get them the first 20 times, or you did and simply haven't answered. Boring. Make an argument or leave.
@sheepOG Oh, as far as Chomsky being anyone's "prophet", this demonstrates you know nothing about him, those who read him, or much of anything else regarding Chomsky. You're job is not to whine about Chomsky, but to try and demonstrate something wrong if you can. Asserting that folks who actually know his work are his disciples is childish nonsense, and sounds like Horowitz and the other few anti-Chomsky droolers. Boring.
@kmelfina they produce drama shows. They address emotional and relationship issues that people can relate to, but in a way that's not as boring as their own lives. It's not their fault if that's what people want to watch, just for being what they are.
@sheepOG Actually, unless something has been erased here, there is nothing resembling spam. Spam is crap which has nothing to do with any topic and is just taking up and wasting space. Simply because you have nothing to offer hardly means that those who do as offering nothing but spam. But if you have evidence of this I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, go read a book and quit spamming by saying we're spamming. We're saying something. You aren't. Hence, the term spam.
@sheepOG Not at all. Just responding to comments. Nothing to obsess about. Exercise your "self-ownership" and don't read. I'm not "coercing" you to do something you don't want. Nicer.
@kropotkinbeard1 Yes, it is entertaining how little effort requires to completely discredit the extreme left, and how despite that, none of them can admit it. Ah, confirmation bias, how many people you trap permanently.
Ahhh...Nothing I like hearing more than the cult of whining "Libertarians", actually, fake Libertarians, whining about the evils of the poor as opposed to the parasitical nature of the top 1%. I mean, takes a lot of work NOT to know just how parasitical they are, and how they came to be that way. Haha...Just got to internalize the Horatio Alger fairy tale and pretend you live in a vacuum to have such "insight". There 1% worked hard for their money! They're the people who "make things". (snore)
@kropotkinbeard1 Looks like it's one of the cult of liberals and socialists who is doing the whining at the moment. Please name some of these "parasitic" 1%. Bill Gates? George Soros? Steve Jobs? Warren Buffett? ...Well? Just because you say certain people are parasitic doesn't make it true, but it's nice to see the compassionate left taking the moral high ground. Maybe it's just that they're successful, you're jealous, and our governments are simply incompetent. Look up Fannie Mae+Freddie Mac.
@theredscourge Nothing resembling whining. Also, I rarely see anyone from the right who has the foggiest what a socialist is, so until you have demonstrated that you do, you probably shouldn't use the term anymore. And I don't say that because I say it that it makes it true. That's what you're doing. I don't make comments unless I have mounds of sources to prove it. Regarding Buffett, he himself admits that the wealthy don't pay enough taxes. It's rather pathetic when you still don't understand
@kropotkinbeard1 Buffett's tax stance wont matter if tax itself is immoral. If you claim to have not been whining, anyone can too, thus your previous claim that "we" are whining is moot, which is my point. You propose that I must prove my authority before using "socialist" in your presence, and ironically this is the same logic I apply to the state. The difference is the state has yet to prove that it can be trusted with power, whereas I can just go to a dictionary to prove my authority to you.
@theredscourge The religious notion that tax is immoral is just stupid and naive. People living in a civil society should be happy to pay taxes in order to make their society better. I can Rand's anti-social influence here has infected you. It's quite simple. There is a system. People make up that system. People designate other people to take care of whatever they decide needs to be taken care of, and everyone pitches in to pay for the stuff. Some just pitch in more i.e.the poor. That aside...
@kropotkinbeard1 What if I think that the "civil society" I live in isn't worth a rat's backside? I should still be happy to pay to taxes to rich liberal leaders that run things yeah? Sorry, I prefer to make my life better with my own hands if it's all the same to you, and you know why, because everybody has a different idea from mine on what would make society better.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Well, that's easy. Leave. That, or stop whining and try and change it. Secondly, yes, you should be happy to pay taxes if the country you're living in is democratic and the people running the country were democratically elected. And "liberals" don't run the country. Sorry, but I sure as hell wish that were the case. If you like to walk around pretending that you're a "self-made man", by all means, do it and quit your whining. Just don't plan on using anything which the..
@AstroAntaAposAnarch ...the civil society has created via taxes e.g.roads, post office, etc...as well as most all technology which was ALL created via the state. This goes for the computer you're sitting at now, the Internet you're using, the telecommunications you're using, the transistors you're using, avionics, and just on and on....Sorry, but libertarianism is a fairy tale system for children. There are so many gaping holes in it that it's embarrassing. And if my idea of what would make...
@AstroAntaAposAnarch ...society better, then so be it. You lose. Leave. That or grow up and participate in the society. Sorry , but I'm assuming that you work and make some sort of money, otherwise you probably wouldn't be sitting their using your state-developed computer which you bought with money that you've also taken from the system. No system, no money. The system owes YOU nothing. You own the system. So, grow up and start acting like an adult. Burn any Ayn Rand books left by the toilet.
@kropotkinbeard1 Microsoft and Dell and Apple are not state owned organizations. Of what contributions government institutions have made, many were done by private contractors in a competitive market. If state control is really what created computers, why weren't Chinese & Soviet computers more developed? Libertarianism is not anarchy. You should try reading books instead of burning them.
@natdavi Never said they were. I said that none of these companies would exist at all were it not for their technologies having been paid for via taxes and by the state in the first place. And this goes for most all of the other technologies as well. The people pay for them, the R&D, etc... via taxes and then they're handed over to private power. Gates, Jobs, etc...would most likely be teaching elementary math or waiting tables in Denny's were it not for the evil state. The notion of the...
@kropotkinbeard1 so are you going to give credit to Emperor Hirohito for helicopter scenes in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park?
That a technology began in military R&D lab doesn't negate the credit due to the people who developed it into something that enriches normal people's lives.
@natdavi Uhhh...I wasn't talking about who came onto the scene waaaay late in the game, took the technology and made things with it. The point was that it had already been paid for by the citizens via taxes and developed by the "evil state" just like most all dynamic sector products. The point is that "rugged individualists" out on their own developing things did virtually nothing. They owe the government and the people, not vice versa. And I'm all for enriching people's lives. Especially ...
@kropotkinbeard1 uuuhh then why did you bring them up Gates, Jobs, etc. if you weren't talking about them? "the people" got their money's worth from WWII gvmnt R&D in the form of V-Day thanks in part to better computing power along with NASA and weather Radar, etc. For some reason all that gvmnt research didn't lead to Windows and iPods sooo yeah you have to pay for that at Wal-Mart... unless you don't want them... unlike gvmnt programs...
Good video, but even if the top 1% of income earners is transient, what about the top 1% of overall wealth owners? I'd bet that demographic is more stable. (eg. If Bill Gates didn't earn anything this year, he'd still be in the top 1% of overall wealth owners). What proportion of wealth is owned by the top 1% of the wealthy (not just the top 1% of income earners)? The democratic congressman's excerpted argument was weak, but there's more to be investigated about this issue...
pwelchster 5 hours ago
Rich guy apologetics.
onecircles 9 hours ago
could someone plz tell me what the music in the beginning is? gives me goosebums
nitoiida 21 hours ago
Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit. Maybe they are in the top 1% because they EARNED it Bernie you fucking commie. Or inherited it it doesn't matter. You aren't rich because YOU aren't rich not because somebody made you un-rich. You clown
bnsaints 4 days ago
The rich have become rich thanks to the workers, consumers and taxpayers of this nation. Without them, the necessary labour to produce goods and services, the necessary demand for them and the necessary infrastructure to allow for cheap transportation of labour and goods to and from markets wouldn't exist.
If the rich do not share their wealth with those who helped them accumulate it, they themselves will suffer as a result of increased tensions and falling demand.
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 Well comrade the workers got paid a WAGE. That is what they get. Nobody has to share ANYTHING that is THEIRS. You fucking communist. Your argument is species in the extreme because you don't have a right to a job and once you work a job you serve at the discretion of you employer not the other way around. What fucking planet are you from?
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints The fact of the matter is that real wages in this nation have been stagnant and even in decline for the last few decades, and the share of wages in the national income has declined across the board, even in China of all places.
The point is that the rich allow their greed to get in the way of everyone's long-term interest. They do not see that they themselves benefit from a unionized workforce and a welfare state, since it leads to increased purchasing power and consumer confidence.
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 All of what you're saying is horse shit but even if true SO WHAT. In capitalism the "rich" are not required to "share their wealth" as it is THEIRS. Everybody's lon term interests are the responsibility of the individual not the wealthy to redistribute their wealth. My advice is go to china Comrade.
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints The problem is that you see progressive taxation as a punishment for being successful, when redistribution of wealth is in fact the basis for economic development. It leads to increased purchasing power and consumer confidence, which leads to rising demand, which leads to increased income to private and public sector, which results in private and public investment in hiring employees and expanding production and thereby to falling unemployment and rising economic activity.
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 Ok Paul Krugman lol. Wealth redistribution has never WORKED in history. Redistribution is EXACTLY that. STEALING something that doesn't belong to you and giving it and its benefit to somebody else. You can call it "progressive taxation" it is THEFT. I find the notion of redistribution to be laughable, how can something be RE-distributed to you if it wasn't yours and was not DISTRIBUTED to you in the fist place lol. If ten of us had a combination of 100 bucks and all pooled it together
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints Let's look at the keynesian, social democratic Golden Age(1951-1973), average global growth lay at 4.8%, global inflation at 3.9% and unemployment in France and Britain lay at 1.2% and 1.6%. We experienced 38 financial crises.
Compare this to the neoliberal Washington Consensus(1979-present), average global growth has been at 3.2%, global inflation marginally lower at 3.2% and unemployment in France and Britain has been at 9.5% and 7.4%. We've experienced over 150 financial crises.
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 As you can see, a regulated, mixed economy is superior to the market fundamentalist model of today. Employment was at its highest, unemployment at its lowest, growth at its best and equality at its greatest during the Golden Age. The world did not experience a single year with less than 3% global growth, and thereby not a single major global recession, and had the world grown at the rate of the Golden Age for these last few decades, the world economy would be 50% greater today
Data:IMF
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 Ok when you are done quote mining your UC Berkley freshman economics book then maybe you can go and actually look up some facts. The US did not experience 38 Financial crises since 1900 until today let alone from 1951-1973. Additionally, EVERY crisis we had was presided over by DEMOCRATS. The great depression, the carter years, Obama, LBJ. I'm guessing you are using some nut job hippie definition of "crises" in you evaluation process. You are not a critical thinker, you have shown
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints I said the world, not the US. The data was compiled by Robert Skidelsky, a conservative, social democratic, economic historian who wrote the biography on Keynes and is a professor at the University of Warwick.
It appears you do not want to have a debate, I don't know what you're doing on a Thomas Sowell video since he was obviously not content with spewing out verbal diarrhea and ad hominem-arguments.
Good day to you, sir.
atosafi1 3 days ago
@atosafi1 One can not be a Conservative/social democratic. You are not intelligent enough to debate me, you give away your youth and inexperience in the choice of words you keep making
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints
Yeah, blame Roosevelt for the depression when the crises occurred under Hoover. Blame Obama for a crisis unleashed under Bush. All the while expressing ad hominem several times over.
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@JokersAce0 Go learn history kid. HOOVER did NOTHING to trigger the stock market crash. Roosevelt CAMPAIGNED on fixing the problem, not only did he not but he exacerbated them. The depression stopped by our WWII production. Roosevelt destroyed america, we still see the damage he inflicted today. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc... You're obviously an ignorant college kid trying to sound smart
bnsaints 1 day ago
@bnsaints
you're cute with your ad hominem and assumptions. fact is that Hoover started many programs and could in fact be considered as starting the new deal. besides, government spending is what brought america out of the great depression regardless of whether or not it was spending on social projects or the military. you remind me of friedman, who argued against government intervention when in fact he depended on the government for his living through the depression
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@JokersAce0 Please go back and read a History book. Your rather ignorant and uniformed evaluation is humorous an incorrect. The military production was to SUPPLY our allies at first. Comparing Government spending on the military to government social programs is absurd. Especially when at a bare minimum military spending generates REVENUE. We may well have spent as a government to produce military hardware which we then SOLD. What did/do social programs do? They SUCK MONEY. Like liberals do lol
bnsaints 1 day ago
@bnsaints
oh yeah, since i must go down to your degenerate level i'll just say that you are obviously an old man who didn't learn anything academically during his youth and instead praises the glories of being an uneducated idiot all the while arguing all day on youtube against his juniors just so he thinks his voice has any say in the world
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@Joker It is obvious you're young. From the cutting and pasting right from a freshman economics book from Berkeley to your statements which lack critical thought, originality or intelligence. Your postings scream ignorant you college kid. I have two degrees and a damn sight more life experience and historical knowledge than you do. Maybe if you spent more time LEARNING the facts and less time cutting and pasting other left wing assholes ramblings you might not look like the guy from Good Will
bnsaints 1 day ago
@bnsaints
Yeah bullshit, I knew this was gonna result in a flame fest, I shouldn't have bothered arguing with a fucking moron whose argument is based on his insults more than facts. You're the bigest hypocrite I've had the displeasure of coming across, insulting me as some sort of college kid whose trying to figure out the world when I am fact not a college kid. you can't make a difference between military & social spending. Not even the lendlease act created revenue, give me the next insult.
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@JokersAce0 I don't need to insult you, your reaction validates what I said otherwise you wouldn't have thrown a tantrum missy. You're some overly educated snot nosed collge kid or 20 something Marin county douchebag who has managed to drop every liberal catch phrase and bullshit trump card in you intellectually vapid postings. You're a classic liberal clown shoes whose only answer for everything is capitalism sucks tax the rich. Go change you Che Gueverra Tee-shirt cry baby and sip you latte.
bnsaints 1 day ago
@bnsaints
you're hilarious man, a grade A troll. if i was a classic liberal, I'd be Adam Smith. ZING! Thanks for saying I'm overly educated though, even though I have no college experience whatsoever. :D
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@JokersAce0 same kind of ignorance. Good night Noam Chomskey junior
bnsaints 1 day ago
@bnsaints
hahaha!
JokersAce0 1 day ago
@JokersAce0 Hunting who got verbally shit stomped by Matt Damons Character in the Diner. Nighty Night Chomskey.
bnsaints 1 day ago
@atosafi1 yourself to be some quixotic college student who is in love with some communist economics professor and you are regurgitating information that you have no concept of what it truly means. Run along and let the grown ups play kid.
bnsaints 3 days ago
@atosafi1 then it was redistributed so we each got 10 bucks a piece, SOMEBODY got dicked. Somebody gained money they didn't deserve and somebody lost money they didn't deserve to lose. It is unethical and two illogical. In other words it is the daily behavior of liberals in this country.
bnsaints 3 days ago
@bnsaints
Why go to China? So one can experience the brunt of unregulated capitalism with the brunt of totalitarian policies?
JokersAce0 1 day ago
I have one thing to say: NO MORE TAX BREAKS FOR MR BURNS!
SnugglePuma 4 days ago
@MetrazolElectricity You're ignorant.
capitalismforme 4 days ago
@451ianDragonist Michael Jackson, for many years, was a known Billionaire. He was never listed on the Fortune 400. Do you know why? Oprah Winfrey is a known Billionaire and she isn't on the list. The richest man in the world, Evelyn De Rothschilds isn't listed either. The answer to all these questions is because the list is highly flawed. Warren Buffett, for example, is worth approximately twice as much as what the list contends, and that's from his own statements.
capitalismforme 4 days ago
What an unfortunate man.
YawnGod 4 days ago
as has already been argued, greed alone is not sufficient to become rich, it must also be accompanied with work. you can overnight go from being the most selfless man in the world to the greediest man in the world, and your income will not go up 1 dime unless you back this greed up with work.
ambagoli21 5 days ago
There aren't a lot of entertainers in the Fortune 400.
451ianDragonist 5 days ago
Uncle Tom
MetrazolElectricity 5 days ago
A free market system is a great system. But as with any system, corruption can occur. Checks and balances must be established in order to have a level playing field. Does that mean everyone should/will earn the same income? No. It only means every plays by the same rules. The government should NOT try to run business, as itself as a business model is a calamity. Their role should be minimal but essential in ensuring a fruitful and sustainable market.
GreenTaurosGuy 6 days ago
Makes me sad to see how old he is. Wish he would write some sort of magnum opus on econ besides his "Basic Econ" books. Like an in-depth intermediate level textbook.
fountainherz 1 week ago
what's your point? the top 1%, whether it is a transient class or not, should pay taxes on their income at a fair rate. and yes i would accuse entertainers of being greedy
pat292 1 week ago
@pat292 The top 1% are already taxed in a higher bracket than everyone else. That to me sounds unfair. Just because they are more productive they must pay a higher rate than everyone else?
5382021 1 week ago
@5382021 Well, productive does not = earnings, so no... But because they earn more they should pay a higher rate. And really, the top 1% is paying less in effective tax rate then most of recent history. The latest number say, that the top 1% pays an effective tax rate of 29.5% in 2007, where is most of the 90s that was 35% and that is a reduction of over 15%. And as the income gap between the top 1% and the average is massively increase, that percent paid should have gone up, not down.
Loathomar 6 days ago
@Loathomar 29.5% of the income of the top 1% is an enormous amount tax income for the government. The question you need to ask is this: if you increase tax rates on the single most mobile section of the community, will they just bend over, lube up and take it or will they instead, move to another tax jurisdiction which, judging by it's tax rates, wants their money more?
docdamag 6 days ago
@docdamag Why is 29.5% federal tax for the top 1%? The UK has an effective top tax rate of 60%, but 29.5% is enormous? Clearly, there are no rich people in the UK then, right? Oh wait, there are tons of rich people in the UK. You logic fails, congrats.
Loathomar 6 days ago
@Loathomar So you'll raise the maximum amount of money by charging a 100% tax people who have "made enough money"? Simpleminded assumptions like yours are plain silly and not really useful for increasing tax revenue.
docdamag 6 days ago
@docdamag That would be as retarded as saying the rich should be taxed 0%, while still getting all the benefits of the government. Really, it is always a question of where any tax system is on the Laffer curve. But saying the US tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 14% is too far on the Laffer curve is laughable, as all nations, many doing better then the US, have a far higher then the US.
Loathomar 5 days ago
@Loathomar According to wikipedia, the rate is either 24% (OECD numbers) or 26.9 (Heritage Foundation). Are you only counting federal taxes?
docdamag 5 days ago
I will never make more than 20,000 dollars. I stay where I am for life. It gets really grim. I don't understand why we're here in a modern society that doesn't "need" us.
returnoftheramble 1 week ago
now I believe in something; convince me of something. I just try to say my cliches.
returnoftheramble 1 week ago
Actually, the top 1% would in Thomas Sowell evidence mean that the 1% is a fluid state of constant influx of new comers. Given that you could be the in the top 1% with $340,000, however, the average top 1% is $960,000. Meaning you really aren't talking about the top 1% but more of the top .4%, or .3%. Given that, Financial inequality in the US is 42.7% which the 1% own in the US, which hasn't been broken down in the top .1%, or .2%, or .3%
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
Did anyone say that the 1 percent were perment. Uncle Tom Sowell tends to draw conclusions on something that not related to the topic at hand. Senility must be setting in on the Ole Uncle Tom Sowell.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
@comptonproduction What conclusions? He just eloquently identified who makes up the top one percent. The only thing 'perment' here appears to be your condescending idiocy. Surprising that you found you way to this video on a Saturday morning when cartoons are being shown.
fzqlcs 1 week ago
Cartoons. ha ha. Thomas Sowell a retard.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
@comptonproduction Judging by your name, you're a fucking retard from the worst part of L.A., which is in the worst state in the country: CA. I live in CA, I would know. Get out of here, and learn how to spell.
WesOKelly 1 week ago
YOU DON'T KNOW COMPTON.YOU ARE A PUNK.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
@comptonproduction You even type like a caveman, you have no right to call somebody a retard.
BMunich16 1 week ago
What kindergarden did you graduate from.
.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
I KNOW MORE ABOUT WRITING, THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
HE'S A FUKKKING RETARD.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
@comptonproduction You forgot a "C" in "FUKKKING". Seriously this is the worst troll attempt of all time, a good troll doesn't make it obvious.
BMunich16 1 week ago
I'm working on my PHD in Language Studies. I can do that. What's your Fukking problems.
comptonproduction 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Capitalism was a computer program that was allowed to play out without any direct interference in its processes.... right before that program terminated the VAST majority of wealth would be in the hands of a very very small minority of people..... and unfortunately there would be no way to redistribute wealth once this event horizon is reached. Like any other economic system, Capitalism is flawed. In America the wealthy can manipulate politics to exploit this flaw. Therein lies the dilemma.
MrSamySara 1 week ago
At the height of the Roman Empire the top 1% controlled 16% of the wealth. Today in the U.S. the 1% control 40% of the nation's wealth. Total net worth of the bottom 60% of the U.S. is less than Forbes 400 richest. The net worth of the six heirs of Walmart equals the bottom 30% of the country.
mortald 1 week ago
@mortald This is the flaw of pure Capitalism. It cannot sustain itself. Eventually a few individuals end up with all of the wealth and redistributing this wealth is no longer possible. The extremely wealthy are only a product of this flaw and should not be demonized. However it is the job of the government redistribute wealth via taxes etc, and to prevent collusion amongst wealthy individuals in politics and business. Being aware of the flaws of pure capitalism is not socialism.
MrSamySara 1 week ago
@MrSamySara "However it is the job of the government redistribute wealth via taxes etc, and to prevent collusion amongst wealthy individuals in politics and business"
So, you mean the the politicians should not collude with wealthy individuals? You mean the very people the control the press, education, banks? You mean those people?
And you get to be a politician without money, press, and a network how? Challenge your opponent to a winner take all spelling Bee? A pie eating contest?
trublu97 1 week ago
This 2011 Holiday season the top seven banks are expected to give record bonuses totaling $156 billion. Goldman Sachs compensation this year for its 38,900 workers averages to $362,862 per employee. Jaimie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, compensation last year came to $20.8 billion. That is an hourly wage of $10,400. 1.6 million children in the U.S. were homeless in 2010.
mortald 1 week ago
@mortald That is an hourly wage of $10,400. 1.6 million children in the U.S. were homeless in 2010.
So what is your point? Maybe the homeless and destitute should get a job at a bank and make that hourly wage of $10K.
Or apply to work at Goldman.
trublu97 1 week ago
what is capitalism? is that not a political sistem where the economy exist for money not for the people? that's what the word seems to imply.
how about peopleism?
cfarinho 2 weeks ago
@cfarinho that is a childish understanding of capitalism. capitalism is simply the system of voluntary exchange. of course, money is the medium of exchange, but as such it exists to serve people. all animals are forced to produce in order to live. Capitalism is simply the economic freedom that allows one to trade their production for someone elses.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
did they come down to the top 2 pc? Selling a house puts you on the top 1 pc? What a stupidity. The statistic, idiot, is that there's been a upward transfer of wealth for the past 30 years and it's fact. It means less money to spend for millions of people and wouls have halted the economy long ago if people had not gone into debt. And that is the real problem. Besides, what the hell is capitalism? A religion?
cfarinho 2 weeks ago
@cfarinho yes, let's blame capitalism for some people contracting debt than beyond their ability to pay. heck, they just wanted to live like the people who produce.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fzqlcs what is capitalism? is that not a political sistem where the economy exist for money not for the people? that's what the word seems to imply.
how about peopleism?
cfarinho 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs by the way, can you reasonably believe that an economy can work without money running trough it? and how will that happen if not through wages?
cfarinho 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Capitalism is flawed like any other economic system. It may be the best system out there but it can be blamed. You are a fool to think otherwise. Under pure capitalism, money is inevitability accumulated by a fraction of a fraction of a minority and cannot be redistributed, I call this the "event horizon". To counteract this fatal flaw we utilize programs and laws that many Republicans ignorantly refer to as Socialist. These are only measures to procure sustained Capitalism.
MrSamySara 1 week ago
@MrSamySara "To counteract this fatal flaw we utilize programs and laws that many Republicans ignorantly refer to as Socialist"
So, your solution to the "fatal flaw" of capitalism that creates wealth, jobs, technology, medicine, arts, entertainment, and a better life style..Is to seize that wealth from the producers, give it to the crack-whore gov that creates nothing but only takes...so they can give it their lobbyist/special interest friends.
So that is your "solution"?
trublu97 1 week ago
Amen!
arivas713 2 weeks ago
I've noticed over the years that left-wing types thrive by assigning individuals to and defining people to groups that they claim are enduring to be able to pit people against one another. They speak about children, the old, the poor, middle class, rich, the "1%" like people exist in these groups their whole lives and they are defined by it. Kids grow into adults, old people used to be young, people change socio-economic classes based on their own aspirations, decisions, and fortunes.
stebecool 2 weeks ago 7
@stebecool critical theory teaches them to tag and label people that way.. the indoctrination starts in school slowly building up until their world view is warped
lovellespice 2 weeks ago
This is exactly what bothers me about this newly coined, meaningless icon - "the 1%". It doesn't refer to anything real. There's always going to be 1% of people who are the top 1% in terms of wealth, but to treat them as though they were some monolithic entity acting in unison is preposterous. Most millionaires did not inherit their wealth.
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago 4
This is a smart guy writing intelligent bullshit.
magicwhiteguys 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a vulgar propagandist for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a vulgar propagandist for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
@counteringlies What a lot of nonsense. All he's talking about here is that slogan. That's the subject of this video. You say "forget about what you're talking about and talk about what I want you to talk about". And if the slogan is illegitimate, as you seem ready enough to concede, then why do you have a problem with this video? "Crony capitalism" is government interference in the economy - it's government by lobby. What it isn't is capitalism.
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why this is so obtuse is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
The reason why this is so stupid is he doesn't address the rent-seeking and crony corporate capitalism that made many of those finance-based riches possible. Quit tarrying on the "1 percent slogan"...it's just that, a slogan. The substance behind the slogan is the fact that riches were gained via corruption, fraud and the nanny state catering to the powerful. And by not addressing this, Sowell is nothing but a tool for that class.
counteringlies 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 3 weeks ago
Earning money in a capitalist system is a sign of productivity and value given not "greed." He uses the wrong word. Senators are "greedy" -- they live off tax dollars of others and use them to buy votes while voting themselves gold-plated health care and pensions. That's greed. Watch their language. Don't accept it. They skew the debate with false buzzwords that tell lies and are unfair to facts. This guy has envy with a halo. Screw him. He deserves a swirly.
DexterHaven49 3 weeks ago 22
@DexterHaven49 I think there are some cases where "greed" is an appropriate term to bestow upon a capitalist.
CSec946 2 weeks ago
@DexterHaven49 Everybody is greedy and everybody would do the exact same thing were they a senator. Voter apathy and stupidity are the real problems with the American system.
JaysGOP 1 week ago
@DexterHaven49 Senators don't actually earn that much money. Most are already independently wealthy and they run for office for the influence, not the pay check. Wealthy people only earn money by paying workers a fraction of the value of their production. Now that's greed.
SnugglePuma 4 days ago
@SnugglePuma I disagree. Senators get great health care, travel and expenses, plus a lifetime pension. Plus six figure salaries. For doing next to nothing. A cushy job. Business owners need to earn a profit to compensate for their idea to start the business, what to sell, where, at what price, with what marketing, etc. That's worth something. If workers don't like the pay rate, they can sell their labor elsewhere or start their own business. No one forces them to work for anyone. Labor for sale.
DexterHaven49 4 days ago
@DexterHaven49 Really, the six figure salary and health benefits are nothing compared to the value of the political influence members of congress have. Nobody runs for congress for the pay or benefits. These same people could earn many times what they make in congress as corporate CEOs. Your notion that workers "sell" their labor on a market is completely obsolete. Workers are at the mercy of their employer and when the job is done they are promptly ushered out the front door...
SnugglePuma 4 days ago
So what? YOu pay higher tax when you made the higher income. What's the idea behind this? Don't tax the first year? or the next? Another wacky reasoning they came up with...to avoid paying ..
Anastrodamus 3 weeks ago
He makes a good point about celebrities, they can make as much as they want but bankers and businessman are crucified by the occupy movements.
yesman2079 4 weeks ago 19
@yesman2079 There's always a businessman behind that celebrity getting more of the cut than they are.
DeathBringer769 2 weeks ago
@yesman2079 Not really. Celebs weren't involved in the bailouts.
HybridD91 1 week ago
@yesman2079 bankers are the most overpaid and the most useless for the society.
TheDragonAlduin 1 week ago
@yesman2079
Celebrities are like 2 per cent of the 1 per cent... and they really are outliers... business men aren't, people without much talent get compensations exceeding their marginal product. Carl Icahn adds ridiculous value to corporations just buying them, and reducing CEO compensation. Thomas Sowell has too much momentum to be credible... let go of sides... just observe and diagnose... people like Sowell diagnose beforehand and try to fit in the world into their little view
DiotheCypriot 1 week ago
@yesman2079 We don't have a problem with the rich; we have a problem with bankers and businessmen taking taxpayer money in the form of bailouts by the govt and the federal reserve. Please explain to me how that's crucifixion.
ltdshred1 5 days ago
@yesman2079 Actually, many people HAVE pointed out that celebrities are overpaid. The difference is that while Nick Cage may be overpaid he didn't cause a financial melt down that cost millions of people their jobs and homes. But rest assured brave yesman, when they do we'll be there to occupy Hollywood.
syntheticsteve 4 days ago
@yesman2079 Actors and musicians produce a product that people pay for. Very different from the banker, insurance company or wall street persons that cheat people out of their monies through checking fees, derivatives and failure to pay on claims owed.
Selling a product is commendable and provides for many to prosper. Ripping people off through the manipulation of the market and banking fees is disgusting and only makes those who do it richer.
AtheistDaddy 4 days ago
@AtheistDaddy Wait, bankers cheat people out of money and actors and musicians don't??? Ever seen a Tom Cruise movie? Or Nicholas Cage? Have you listened to the radio lately. Contemporary entertainment is the biggest scam in history good sir!!!!!!! And fucking c'mon, not all bankers are bad. You sound jealous since you probably don't have a clue to make money.
natazer 4 days ago
@natazer I never said all bankers were bad. However, making and selling products (including entertainment) is what drives a market forward. Manipulating the stock market, holding people's money hostage in a bank (unregulated) and denying health coverage or refusing to pay out insurance is criminal. I have seen Raising Arizona and I loved it. You got me though, I'm jealous.
Also, fix your punctuation key. It's annoying to the reader.
AtheistDaddy 4 days ago
Betcha Bernie's a millionare.
TheGoat1954 4 weeks ago
@TheGoat1954 Bernie Sanders described himself IN HIS OWN WORDS as a "Selfish Communist."
DrMotorDude 3 weeks ago
@DrMotorDude There's no such thing as an unselfish communist.
87thekang 3 weeks ago
@87thekang True - in application but when he said that he implied it's just fine for leftists like him to keep their own money/assets while taking assets of others at gunpoint (try 'voluntary compliance' like IRS calls it) IF you INTEND on giving to those assets to the "poor."
DrMotorDude 3 weeks ago
@MrDougSkeeter Shut the fuck up you bigoted wealthophobe.
chuck3668831 1 month ago
this don't sound like thomas sowell.
FuckUtube4Life2010 1 month ago
Sure, I was like most of you. Calling out the occupy movement as a movement of cry babies. Then one day, I accidentally spent 2 dollars over my credit card limit. Now a rational person would think that the limit was there as a theft countermeasure. As if the card would simply reject the transaction if the amount was over the limit. Well people, in the age of banking greed this is not a reality. In fact, the limit is there to charge you a 20$ fee if u go over. Support corp?. FUCK THAT!
LongBow1600 1 month ago
@LongBow1600 Stop going over maybe?
jakeel85 1 month ago
@jakeel85 Well, that goes without saying. But you kinda missed the point here. Read the part where I say a good corp would use limits as a theft countermeasure and block the transaction.
LongBow1600 1 month ago
@LongBow1600 Go to a different credit card company then, it's called capitalism
BMunich16 1 month ago
@BMunich16 duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh. They all do that you fucking tard. Go preach the trickle down effect on some different site. Its called capitalism.
LongBow1600 1 month ago
@LongBow1600 pick a different bank then, or at least don't blame all of capitalism for policies of a few companies.
If you can't switch, realize that the banking industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries. Most of their historical profit sources have been made illegal or taken by the credit card companies. They used to maintain healthy leverage levels before banking regulations got as ridiculous as they are today. Not all regulations are bad, but despite their intentions,most are
northcottmichael 1 month ago
@LongBow1600 said [[Well people, in the age of banking greed this is not a reality. In fact, the limit is there to charge you a 20$ fee if u go over. Support corp?. FUCK THAT!]]
That's the cost of you being too irresponsible to track your own money and credit. Get a CC with different terms if you don't like it. It's your fault for (a) going over your credit limit, and (b) not reading the terms of the contract you signed. If you are an adult & you really need a nanny state, then you're pathetic.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
who cares man, just make sure your boss pays you and if he doesnt take him to court
is it really that hard guys, yes you can get fired, but you will move on
we have more opportunities than anyone else
UpalKashey 1 month ago
The top 1% are a minority. What is all this discrimination, angst, and hatred against minorities? I thought liberals were for minority rights.
chuck3668831 1 month ago 3
@chuck3668831 ha I never thought of that one
BMunich16 1 month ago
@chuck3668831
lc good word play but minority rights don't have anything to do with numbers but instead power. That is the actually definition. That's how a minority can actually be the majority of the population. Like the apartheid In South Africa. good day.
therealallpro 2 weeks ago
@therealallpro Dictionary definition of minority "The smaller number or part, esp. a number that is less than half the whole number." 1% are a minority. Good day.
chuck3668831 2 weeks ago
Most people DO stay in the same income range their whole lives. Even at the top. 50% may fall out of the top 1% one year, (down to top 2-3%) then be back next year. Those are realistic fluctuations. And that is WHY there are "guenuinely wealthy" people, as stated. So set aside income and talk about wealth, which us cumulative income. 50% of the WEALTH is owned by 1%. People born into poverty, likewise, tend to stay there. This video is an excellent example of lying with statistics.
brindlebriar 1 month ago
@brindlebriar
But wealth is also deceptive. What if you own a factory, which the IRS appraises at however many millions of dollars, which provides you with a modest, somewhat fluctuating income, so long as you devote part of your time and income to maintaining it? Are you really that much better off than, say, a high-paid engineer at your factory?
The same goes for a house. How much better off are you really than someone who rents an equivalent home? Is every home owner in -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
-
- San Fransisco super-rich?
More to the point, do we really want to use the tax system to encourage people to burn their wealth as quickly as possible, rather than to save and invest?
And perhaps even more fundamentally: why does someone who earns a lot of money owe more for the same services than someone who earns less? I realize the US isn't exactly a free market economy, but there's presumably still some element of social cooperation in the structure of production.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
@brindlebriar Your facts ... aren't. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, the great majority of people in the bottom income quintile ill move up, more than half in about 6 years and some 30% of them will eventually reach the top income quintile. The key factor is typically age (younger - poorer). and those in the top 1% change even more frequently than you suggest, most, according to the IRS, reaching that level due to non-recurring windfalls. Fire your incompetent fact checker.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@brindlebriar when you're discussing economics with an economist, the more you disagree, the more you're wrong. The only reason for a person to stay in the same tax bracket for their life is they inherited wealth, or they're too stupid to budget according to their income, or too lazy to improve their situation. People from Sowell's generation used to get shit done when something was insufficient. They used to work HARD, now they just complain hard. My parents lived in a trailer. Not anymore.
northcottmichael 1 month ago
"The magic formula of race, class and gender, which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles." Great Quote.
kulcid254 1 month ago
This video requires thinking beyond what anyone at the occupy wall street protests is capable of. To get them to understand anything first you must say "i am not greedy" then you must say "i will give you everything you want". If some of them begin thinking and asking questions like "where does this stuff come from" or "how will YOU give me anything?" just ignore them and continue protesting. You libertarians think to friggin much, thats why u will never be popular...
thebestsumoeva 1 month ago
@thebestsumoeva "Libertarians think too much"? I'll assume this was tongue in cheek. That, or the entire notion of "thinking" as it's ever been used has significantly changed.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
It seems SOME of the people here are intent on "winning" and not on trying to relate to anyone, learn anything, or teach anything. Until you change your approach, you are not going to achieve anything other than making yourself and others angry. You have to try and understand each other's viewpoint and demonstrate your own. If the other guy is not willing to do that, it sohuld become apparent quickly, so in that case just ignore them and move on, it is hopeless.
theredscourge 1 month ago
Or they can steal it in a housing bubble... talk about taking a stat and running with it.
sciman707 1 month ago
Basically the top 1% is an overtly oppressed minority group being abused by the spoiled socialist Nazi middle and working classes. Oh yes the abuse that the 1% gets is INSANE, considering that they are our holy Job Creators and more importantly they are the "motor of the world," by abusing the 1% ur basically screwing urself dumbass socialists!!!
wangsta25 1 month ago
@wangsta25 Comrade Wangsta! Good to see you here! Dive in.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Also funny to see that you haven't found any new arguments since last time. Still the same shit.
Perhaps you should start by not calling individualists (and Rand) sociopaths. Maybe then people won't call Chomsky, the big government anarchist, your prophet.
sheepOG 1 month ago
@sheepOG You have obviously not read anything. And if I'm still making the same arguments it's either because you and others didn't get them the first 20 times, or you did and simply haven't answered. Boring. Make an argument or leave.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@sheepOG Oh, as far as Chomsky being anyone's "prophet", this demonstrates you know nothing about him, those who read him, or much of anything else regarding Chomsky. You're job is not to whine about Chomsky, but to try and demonstrate something wrong if you can. Asserting that folks who actually know his work are his disciples is childish nonsense, and sounds like Horowitz and the other few anti-Chomsky droolers. Boring.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
so do celebrities or realty TV people like Kim Kardashian produce anything? I'm still wondering how the Free Market works for them.
kmelfina 1 month ago
@kmelfina they produce drama shows. They address emotional and relationship issues that people can relate to, but in a way that's not as boring as their own lives. It's not their fault if that's what people want to watch, just for being what they are.
natdavi 1 month ago
Oh lawdy, that's a lot of spam.
sheepOG 3 months ago 8
@sheepOG Actually, unless something has been erased here, there is nothing resembling spam. Spam is crap which has nothing to do with any topic and is just taking up and wasting space. Simply because you have nothing to offer hardly means that those who do as offering nothing but spam. But if you have evidence of this I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, go read a book and quit spamming by saying we're spamming. We're saying something. You aren't. Hence, the term spam.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Wow, you're still obsessing over this video with comments that have nothing to do with the subject. Nice.
sheepOG 1 month ago
@sheepOG Not at all. Just responding to comments. Nothing to obsess about. Exercise your "self-ownership" and don't read. I'm not "coercing" you to do something you don't want. Nicer.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Sowell is funny.
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Yes, it is entertaining how little effort requires to completely discredit the extreme left, and how despite that, none of them can admit it. Ah, confirmation bias, how many people you trap permanently.
theredscourge 3 months ago
@theredscourge Where has this been done? Nothing here. Sounds more like the projection of a distraught bagger.
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
Ahhh...Nothing I like hearing more than the cult of whining "Libertarians", actually, fake Libertarians, whining about the evils of the poor as opposed to the parasitical nature of the top 1%. I mean, takes a lot of work NOT to know just how parasitical they are, and how they came to be that way. Haha...Just got to internalize the Horatio Alger fairy tale and pretend you live in a vacuum to have such "insight". There 1% worked hard for their money! They're the people who "make things". (snore)
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Looks like it's one of the cult of liberals and socialists who is doing the whining at the moment. Please name some of these "parasitic" 1%. Bill Gates? George Soros? Steve Jobs? Warren Buffett? ...Well? Just because you say certain people are parasitic doesn't make it true, but it's nice to see the compassionate left taking the moral high ground. Maybe it's just that they're successful, you're jealous, and our governments are simply incompetent. Look up Fannie Mae+Freddie Mac.
theredscourge 3 months ago
@theredscourge Nothing resembling whining. Also, I rarely see anyone from the right who has the foggiest what a socialist is, so until you have demonstrated that you do, you probably shouldn't use the term anymore. And I don't say that because I say it that it makes it true. That's what you're doing. I don't make comments unless I have mounds of sources to prove it. Regarding Buffett, he himself admits that the wealthy don't pay enough taxes. It's rather pathetic when you still don't understand
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Buffett's tax stance wont matter if tax itself is immoral. If you claim to have not been whining, anyone can too, thus your previous claim that "we" are whining is moot, which is my point. You propose that I must prove my authority before using "socialist" in your presence, and ironically this is the same logic I apply to the state. The difference is the state has yet to prove that it can be trusted with power, whereas I can just go to a dictionary to prove my authority to you.
theredscourge 3 months ago
@theredscourge The religious notion that tax is immoral is just stupid and naive. People living in a civil society should be happy to pay taxes in order to make their society better. I can Rand's anti-social influence here has infected you. It's quite simple. There is a system. People make up that system. People designate other people to take care of whatever they decide needs to be taken care of, and everyone pitches in to pay for the stuff. Some just pitch in more i.e.the poor. That aside...
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 What if I think that the "civil society" I live in isn't worth a rat's backside? I should still be happy to pay to taxes to rich liberal leaders that run things yeah? Sorry, I prefer to make my life better with my own hands if it's all the same to you, and you know why, because everybody has a different idea from mine on what would make society better.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Well, that's easy. Leave. That, or stop whining and try and change it. Secondly, yes, you should be happy to pay taxes if the country you're living in is democratic and the people running the country were democratically elected. And "liberals" don't run the country. Sorry, but I sure as hell wish that were the case. If you like to walk around pretending that you're a "self-made man", by all means, do it and quit your whining. Just don't plan on using anything which the..
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch ...the civil society has created via taxes e.g.roads, post office, etc...as well as most all technology which was ALL created via the state. This goes for the computer you're sitting at now, the Internet you're using, the telecommunications you're using, the transistors you're using, avionics, and just on and on....Sorry, but libertarianism is a fairy tale system for children. There are so many gaping holes in it that it's embarrassing. And if my idea of what would make...
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch ...society better, then so be it. You lose. Leave. That or grow up and participate in the society. Sorry , but I'm assuming that you work and make some sort of money, otherwise you probably wouldn't be sitting their using your state-developed computer which you bought with money that you've also taken from the system. No system, no money. The system owes YOU nothing. You own the system. So, grow up and start acting like an adult. Burn any Ayn Rand books left by the toilet.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Microsoft and Dell and Apple are not state owned organizations. Of what contributions government institutions have made, many were done by private contractors in a competitive market. If state control is really what created computers, why weren't Chinese & Soviet computers more developed? Libertarianism is not anarchy. You should try reading books instead of burning them.
natdavi 1 month ago
@natdavi Never said they were. I said that none of these companies would exist at all were it not for their technologies having been paid for via taxes and by the state in the first place. And this goes for most all of the other technologies as well. The people pay for them, the R&D, etc... via taxes and then they're handed over to private power. Gates, Jobs, etc...would most likely be teaching elementary math or waiting tables in Denny's were it not for the evil state. The notion of the...
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 so are you going to give credit to Emperor Hirohito for helicopter scenes in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park?
That a technology began in military R&D lab doesn't negate the credit due to the people who developed it into something that enriches normal people's lives.
natdavi 1 month ago
@natdavi Uhhh...I wasn't talking about who came onto the scene waaaay late in the game, took the technology and made things with it. The point was that it had already been paid for by the citizens via taxes and developed by the "evil state" just like most all dynamic sector products. The point is that "rugged individualists" out on their own developing things did virtually nothing. They owe the government and the people, not vice versa. And I'm all for enriching people's lives. Especially ...
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 uuuhh then why did you bring them up Gates, Jobs, etc. if you weren't talking about them? "the people" got their money's worth from WWII gvmnt R&D in the form of V-Day thanks in part to better computing power along with NASA and weather Radar, etc. For some reason all that gvmnt research didn't lead to Windows and iPods sooo yeah you have to pay for that at Wal-Mart... unless you don't want them... unlike gvmnt programs...
natdavi 1 month ago