That... isn't how minimum wage works in most countries. Just like a 14 year old can hold a paper route, without his employer being accused of breach of child labour laws, the minimum wage laws typically doesn't apply equally across the board.
What it usually actually does is make sure that even if the employer doesn't want to pay you minimum wage, he won't be able to find anyone with the same qualifications who will do it cheaper. It encourages the trend of hiring the best, not the cheapest man.
@myrkvargkjetter Then you don't need a MW law, because the price mechanism does that. Someone who isn't as qualified can work cheaper. The ONLY thing MW laws do is make it ILLEGAL for that less qualified person to work. And that IS how it works the world over, whether you want to admit it or not.
@shanedk I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may be wrong. I don't have the knowledge (or interest) needed to defend the implementation of min. wage in the US. But, still, what I said is the observation I've made based on what I have seen, and although I'm fairly sure I am not seeing the entirety, and that, but what I actually do see really doesn't match with what you are saying.
That being said, I'm not objecting to most of your major points, only your invocation of "they took our jobs".
@shanedk Ya know what? I'm just wondering why the government wouldn't place a price tag on everyone for schooks. I mean, as in you have to pay for education. I mean, since the whole system is quite possibly a scam out from USA, why not make it worse?
Then again, it could be because they want power over office, which is by majority rule. :)
It really should be known by all by now that "THEY" don't want to fix the problem. "THEY" want to destroy our dollar and economy. Is that not evident by now to everyone? Hello?
What saddens me is that so many scientists have thrown their support for Obama because he said he would "Restore science to its rightful place." Now, as a budding scientist, I of course care deeply about science, but not at the expense of liberty. I feel these are among the intelligent people you mentioned who fall for this false dichotomy.
Let's see, one of the first things Obama did in the area of government science and technology development policy was to kill manned spaceflight. Not reduce the funding, mind you, just direct NASA to not actually develop any actual man-rated boosters, capsules, or other equipment that would be needed. So, NASA will cost as much as ever, and produce rather less than before.
1:03 Energy healthcare and housing are skyrocketing. . . I got my facts from The Huffington Post.
I agree though, we should always question our politicians. I believe Obama is a better candidate. We should ALWAYS ALWAYS doubt politicians and never mindless
If you seriously think Mccain is a better qualified President... Then our conversation is over. But I'd understand if you were for a third party. A third party becoming President, is a pipe-dream.
Shane, have you ever wondered if maybe you're wrong? You're right, a lot of clever people don't agree with your political views, maybe you should think deeply as to why that is.
No, I am NOT side-stepping the issue! The data CLEARLY show that people are WORSE OFF with minimum wage! Your ONLY point was to use the word "slavery" to try and JUSTIFY that policy!
Data? Employment levels INCREASED (again with needless caps ((being a free market capitalist does not give you to capitalise words ^^)) in the UK after the introduction of MW, the same is true across western Europe. I'm not going to make the case that introducing MW somehow increased productivity, but I will argue that it hasn't hurt it.
And I'd argue its better that people not work, than do so for less than MW. Why should anyone be expected to?
Oh, you did a proper regression analysis to make sure the employment levels rose because of MW and not in spite of it, did you? And that analysis was based on the proper controls? Please let us know in which peer-reviewed economic journal you had this work published.
Your argument that it's better to use FORCE to prevent people from working is DISGUSTNG and INHUMANE!
Um... I did say that I wasn't going to argue that. Please read my comments before responding to them ¬.¬
I know that employment didn't increase as a result of MW, I only said that introducing MW didn't injure productivity or employment rates. There is an edge to this coin Shane, it don't always come up heads or tails.
And when have I advocated force exactly? Oh- its because I support a law, I forgot you have a paranoid and twisted view of legislation.
And BTW MW laws aren't in place to prevent people from working for less that MW, there to prevent employers from paying less than it. That could be purely semantic, but I think its a point worth making. Depends with whom your sympathies lie I suppose.
Government IS FORCE!!! The Minimum Wage IS FORCE!!! If someone goes to work for someone for less than the minimum wage, GOVERNMENT FORCE COMES IN TO STOP THEM!!!
You can work for nothing if you want I've no issue with people volunteering.
How many people do you know would choose to work for less? In the real world, nobody's going to cause a great fuss over being paid more than they would otherwise. I'm sure some people would do it to make a point, but honestly, they'd just be attention seekers being petty.
Alright, I'll use the word FORCE if you insist, I think its right that we FORCE employers to pay at least MW.
So, you have NO problem with people working for nothing, or for over minimum wage, but you're willing to use GOVERNMENT FORCE to stop them from accepting anything in between? How evil can you get???
As far as people being "paid more than they would otherwise," you have NO evidence that this will be the case, and ALL SORTS of evidence that it won't!
Ah, the old standby: you have no reaction, so you make fun of a perfectly valid form of emphasis (employed by both Thomas Jefferson and Richard Dawkins).
What FORCE would the government be employing? What tactics are you supposing they'd use if an employer refused to pay a measly £6 an hour? Unless you define your use of the word FORCE, this conversation can't move forward.
And BTW even if TJ and RD used caps only half as often as you, still doesn't make it necessary. Its confrontational and downright rude in this type of forum. As though you're trying to shout down dissent, ala O'Reilly.
Oh, COME ON!!! It happens ALL THE TIME!!! They come in and shut down places that hire people under the table so they can pay them less than MW. The businesses are SHUT DOWN, and those people are OUT OF WORK.
Now, stop your puerile bleating about caps and answer the question!
If a business can't pay its employees MW, then the business is either failing, or has a bad model. There are schemes available in some countries to ease the burden on businesses that have a hard time paying MW, and so I'd suggest the business owner enrol in one of those programs (depending on which country the business is based in) choose to let go of staff, or close completely.
Why should the employee work for less, because of the incompetence or misfortune of the employer?
Oh, but it CAN pay its employees--or rather, it COULD were it not for the meddling of the likes of you! Instead, you condemn many poor people to unemployment and destroy small businesses left and right!
You're a corporatist fascist, nothing more, doing the bidding of the big corporations who can afford it, and say FUCK YOU to the small businesses--the lifeblood of the economy!
How do you know it COULD pay its employees? I don't even know what business we're discussing, or are you assuming all businesses could pay more without the meddling of the likes of me! (never knew I was so influential ^^)
A corporate fascist? Of course, me advocating a workers right to demand enough to have a decent quality of life is not a fascist position, if anything its socialst (the opposite of fascism *pat pat*)
Your ideas are EXACTLY the reasons why so many businesses are faced with moving overseas or closing down entirely. They are EXACTLY the reasons why corporations wield more and more power as time goes on.
wawawawait, you don't know any of my politics beyond what we've discussed here. Please refrain from presuming you know what I advocate, and what effects they have and would have ¬.¬
But you've said a LOT in our discussion! You've said OUTRIGHT that you'd rather relegate someone to unemployment than have them work for below the level your Holy Writ has set! You've said OUTRIGHT that you'd "save" businesses from this by giving them welfare, an option that is ONLY available to bigger corporations!
How are the small farmers doing under farm subsidies, huh? How many of them were "saved"?
Um, did I say I support only making welfare available to bigger corporations? I don't think that's what I said, I'm sure I said that it keeps smaller businesses that can't afford to pay its employees MW afloat... hmmm I'm sure that was it.
For someone that often shouts about logical fallacies, you're guilty of them too.
It's not about what you SAY, it's about the REALITY of how it works! Every single thing you have advocated are things that allow big corporations to keep profiting while keeping smaller competitors and start-ups at bay.
Just because the US government only offers aid to huge businesses in trouble, doesn't mean thats how the rest of the world operates. Sure there are policies I disagree with, but you act as if life in the 21st century in the first world is terrible, when it just isn't the case. There are waves of new business enterprises starting up, many with government grants and loans.
As I said, I'm not too familiar with American politics, but your derogitory comments about politics apply to us all.
And I NEVER said life was terrible. Stop lying. But I'm seeing first-hand the destruction of small businesses. I've seen almost my entire clientele wiped out in just a couple of years!
Well, if you were living in a country with a greater sense of social democracy, then perhaps your business wouldn't be failing so. Or at least you'd have a safety net if it were to.
I've never understood you people that are in a weak position yet refuse help that would be available. Out of what? Pride? Well thats your problem.
Don't poison the stream for those people that aren't so stubborn. I've seen first hand that corporate welfare DOES give aid to small businesses that would've gone under without it.
Don't soil all nations policies with the same shit stick, there are government economic policies that have a positive impact on people lives.
You'd get it by moving to a country with progressive poilicies as opposed to the Dickensian BS you guys have. Though I'm sure there are schemes available in the US, but as I said, I ain't American.
"right... nurse we got a loony one here, bitching conspiracy nonsense again"
You are in way too deep Shane, social policies are thinly-veiled corporatism? Because of course the corporations are always lobbying in favour of social reform aren't they? Uh-huh, alright now I just feel bad for arguing with a lunatic. I guess your obvious anger issues shouldn't sounded that alarm.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they are! Who were the biggest lobbiests for the Clean Air Act? It was the biggest corporations that would be AFFECTED by it! Because they knew that THEY could afford to eat the costs of compliance, while their smaller competitors couldn't, and it would be more difficult for start-ups to form.
That's NOT a conspiracy theory, although I see you've gone with the dogmatist tactic of claiming it is anyway.
Not to mention corporations are a creation of the state anyways, complete with a debt shield, far less taxation, less liability and exists as a legal entity unto itself.
Maybe more of us would be able to afford this stuff if we were taxed the same as corporations.
If government helps businesses (this includes labor, fyi) and/or the rich at the expensive of everyone else (corporatism) it's the same as them not doing it and only punishing force/fraud (free market).
Because a country (the USA) with all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto put into place by varying degrees and all 14 planks of the 1928 Socialist Party platform also put into place isn't progressive/socialist...
The "safety net" is THE REASON WHY THEY'RE FAILING!!! And they're NOT doing better in those other Socialist paradises you so worship! In fact, many of them are going AWAY from Socialism towards a free market to save their economies!
Evidence: I know its a pain in the backside, but you say these things without backing them up "don't impressa me much"
Oh- and I don't worship these socialist paradises, but when the UN ranks Norway as having the highest standard of living (lowest crime rates and higher median wages etc.) and Denmark are desperately trying to import workers because they've too many jobs available, I tend to take their side against those people that advocate the abolishment of their principals.
Nothing, I'm sick of this. You haven't answered my question, haven't acknowledged the examples I've given, and are just being terribly hostile without reason.
BTW I'll close by letting you know that you fucked up, one of these "socialist paradises" that I am so enamoured with, Sweden has no minimum wage. You could have easily bashed me over the head with that and you didn't, I was just testing that extensive knowledge of economics you profess to having :P
Why the FUCK did I take HOURS of my own personal time (which, as a single father, I don't have much of) to make videos explaining this and presenting the evidence, if weasely, pathetic little self-righteous dogmatists like you WON'T EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THEM???
And then, even MORE dishonestly, bleat about that I haven't produced any evidence???
You're an ignorant fucktard, JUST like the creationists. You don't WANT to learn.
Then answer me! What policy could be put in place to alter your view of government being a force of destruction?
And I'm not dogmatic, if progressive socialist countries all failed (massive deficits, high unemployment, high suicide rates etc. etc.) then I'd be quite willing to side with you guys. But they don't fail, they succeed, while the more capitalist countries, US, Lithuania, even the UK have fallen flat at each of these hurdles.
One last time, what would it take to change yours?
My answer: show me a policy that's nondestructive. Show me EVIDENCE that it's non-destructive. But STOP going over things I've debunked in my videos without at least watching them, and above all, STOP LYING!!!
I mean, the Sweden crap you pulled was just DISGUSTING. Sweden HAS been discussed (as well as Hong Kong and other countries sans MW). You're just trying to make yourself superior. That's your ONLY motive here.
I can't sit through any more of your videos, that high pitched whiny voice just grates away at my sanity. I prefer you in text.
You're the one in the position that needs defending. Its not up to me prove the government isn't destructive, just as it isn't the role of scientists to prove there is no god. Its kinda hard to prove a negative.
Give me an example of policy that would be beneficial, or admit that your position couldn't be changed by any action, which would make YOU the dogmatist!
I HAVE defended myself, in NUMEROUS videos, which you REFUSE to watch. That makes you a WORTHLESS human being and it's useless to try and have a discussion with you.
Worthless debating me? I've asked what should be a very simple question, which you REFUSE to answer for some reason... wonder what that might be. Why should I trawl through 174 videos, when you don't have the balls to answer my question? Guess that explains the voice... hmmmm.
As for me being a worthless human being, fuck you.
Is that your definition of pretty messed up? Have you ever been to Sweden? Have you seen how good looking the people are? Have you seen how few beggars there are on their streets?
Defining success in terms of how much money you have in your pocket is a sure fire way to be unhappy.
I realise my argument is not scientific but my point is that happiness is not proportional to income. It's well understood that after you have been fed and sheltered, harmonious relationships are what make people happy. I bet there are plenty of studies that show Scandinavian lifestyle produces happy people despite the problems of an oversize government. Great channel BTW.
@shanedk Since about 1935 Sweden has had a social democratic economy, with high, redistributive income tax and general welfare benefits (even when under conservative governments). However, the Swedish economic model, which has been similar to other Scandinavian countries and therefore are called the "Scandinavian model", is not entirely socialistic, since the goal has been to create a welfare state, not a state with collective ownership. It's not a dictatorship either.
Actually, as a finnish libetarian I was quite suprised that the completely goverment run, Union controlled finnish school system is one of the toppest of the world. Including one of the bit older John Stossel documentaries, where he shows a list of best school system and picks number 2, Belgium, while at the top of the list there is Finland.
@Finlandcitizen Finland has both merit pay for teachers AND it has school choice. The upper secondary schools in Finland compete for students with the best performance. If you'd actually WATCHED the Stossel documentary, you would have seen that you CAN have competition within a government-run system.
And they also have a lot of the same problems as us, such as the difficulty of firing bad teachers. They also have a larger achievement gap than the US.
@shanedk I know and I was thinking why Stollel wouldn't make even better point by pointing out that even by engaging competition in the socialist school system, you can get huge improvements.
I apology if I was trying to make a point against more competive school system, wich I support. I have been watching many of your videos and I have learned a great deal about common sense and economics, many lessons wich a secondary school student around here wouldn't get.
economically speaking, yes. I never said anything about the health, happiness, or condition of the people themselves, which does not depend necessarily on money.
besides, I know quite a few swedes, and they are very happy-just like myself.
mind you, I live just below the US definition of the poverty line, and am very happy, and healthy. also pretty successful: lots of friends, good connections, etc.
so no, I don't judge happiness or success by money, which you imply I do.
Read Mary J. Ruwart's book (the one I linked you to) and look at the sources in the video about the false dichotomy and other economic videos for said evidence.
Just look at the Greek city states, or the Rome after the republic fell (they went from a democracy from an oligarchy under a progression of the Caesar's) into democracy before they were still a republic.
As I said, please refer to the comment above yours, if a business can't afford to pay MW, I advocate programs to keep them solvent. How am I then doing the bidding of evil corparations, if I support doing everything we can to keep small businesses afloat?
Um... yea, it works in other countries... jus' so ya know. I don't know much about the effects it had American commerce, but I know a number of people whose business's would've gone under without it, and are now self sufficient... so yea, corperate welfare's cool, if managed responsibly.
As you know one of the principals of theory building is giving your opponent an example of what would disprove it. What policy could a government implement that in your view would improve peoples lives? And thats implementing policies, not making cutbacks. What evidence would it take, to get you to change your mind?
Then link me to these properly controled studies in a PM, because as of yet in these comments and the video you haven't done so. Whereas I gave you an example of introducing MW that wasn't detrimental to productivity, you can easily view employment figures before and after its introduction, here in the UK or France, or Germany.
But what policy could the government implement, that in your view would disprove your hypothesis that government is fundamentally destructive? Don't evade the question.
"Force: coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means" (Note that fraud is covered under this definition.)
Source: Princeton University's online dictionary.
I'd say that's a good one, wouldn't you agree, Shane?
Off topic, but I hope you will be able to submit videos longer than 10:59 soon. Good luck with that (be it via a partnership, finding a better video blogging site, or youtube getting their heads out of their ass). :)
Yep, I bought into Obamamania. I take full responsibility for my vote. Now I'm going to make it to C4L meetings to make up for it. If I can be turned, so can the rest of the sheep.
Fact: If I saw this video before the election, odds are I either wouldn't have voted, or voted third party (though probably not for Barr: Though I would have after hearing that he's changed his mind on social issues).
Thank you again shane I wish I saw this back in november so I could have shown this vid to my brother. For me I already knew he was up to no good, so I stayed home. Good riddance. I was hung by a long noose when I voted Democrat in 2006 and boooooy did I feel betrayed. Nancy Pilosi tuned out to be a lying son of a bitch, and most of the senate and house who were democrat were just even hungrier for war.
Wow you son of a bitch. Quit yelling at me. Jesus Christ. Listening to you feels like I'm talking to my parents after I didn't finish my chors. I had to turn this off.
Who did you vote for in the 08 presidential elections? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and Ralph Nader in the general election. I refused to buy into the Obama dream, which was never anything but a nightmare. And now his economic advisor is trying his best to make sure no white males get jobs through the stimulus which is really a waste anyway. Obama is blowing the money Americans are trying to save. 30+ states are passing 10th amendment bills, 2 have threatened to dissolve the union.
Without even getting into the horrid New Deal policies, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent should put him on any moral person's Most Hated list.
It's not a wasted vote when someone votes for a third party. If the third party gains enough support, one of the other two parties will adopt some of that third party's platform. It's happened in our past, and if republicans were smart, they would adopt some of the libertarian platform now.
The Republicans had the perfect opportunity with Ron Paul, and they blew it. He was the only one among them who could have given Hillary and Obama a run for their money. McCain was a joke.
Instead, they ostracized him because he was too much of a threat to their corporate interests. And so they lost as a result.
this guy is talking crap, we are a socialist country in britain not comunist, and we get along ok with socialist policys, and we have a minimum wage scheme, and so far it has got 1.4 million ppl into work since magret thatcher had 3 million unemployed, we also added education to the social system for work seakers to get them educated enough to take the employment available, and by the way the conservatives said the same thing about these policys, 1million more unemployed, it didnt happen.
Yeah, right. That must be why you have greater per capita unemployment than we do, inflation that outpaces even the growth of the government sector, and a greater percentage of your population on welfare, and we won't even get into the average four-month wait for non-elective surgery. Oh, and how's the nationalization of even more banks working out for you?
WTF are you talking about? "Artificially shortened" how???
The BLS calls people up and asks them two questions: "Are you out of work?" and "Are you currently seeking work?" If the answer to both is "yes," you go down as unemployed.
It's always been my degree of observation that while one politician would lie through their teeth to appeal to the stupid the other may just do the same thing, except be more subtle, be more sneaky and so forth to appeal to the intellectual... although i don't blame this on anything attributed to it... as DonExodus apparently doesn't do his research on politics, but then again this is the fault for more people... but yah have to say this.. do you sarah palin as VP? doubt it
(Cont. from last message) As for libertarians, well, as far as I am concerned they are a right wing party who have no faith in the common good, and look out for themselves and to hell with everyone else.
If I had to guess, those yahoos who set up militias on the potty notion that the government is out to get them, are probably all libertarians
The minimum wage argument just left me agog at your ignorance. Left to the market, wages would be so low, that people would be little more than bonded serfs. You seem worried about those poor rich people at the top, and less worried about the 90 percent of the population who live from paycheck to paycheck. You hate socialism, although I doubt you know what it actually is, you say you have read Karl Marx, but it's clear you have no clue about the difference between communism and socialism.
It's amazing how you accuse me of ignorance and then make two posts full of the most ignorant tripe I've read in a long time--and yes, that includes from creationists and moon hoaxers!
I have tons of studies and data backing me up. What do you have?
OOohh education, research, well reasoned arguments, non strawmen arguments and so much more. Thanks for the input, just confirms what I have guessed about your point of view.
Uh-huh. You realize that you're denying something that isn't even controversial among economists, that you'll learn in ANY beginning macroeconomics class, right?
"Left to the market, wages would be so low, that people would be little more than bonded serfs."
Straw man argument.
"You seem worried about those poor rich people at the top, and less worried about the 90 percent of the population who live from paycheck to paycheck."
Ad Hominem
"As for libertarians, well, as far as I am concerned they are a right wing party who have no faith in the common good, and look out for themselves and to hell with everyone else."
Well, still, I figured it would be useful to point out just a few of the fallacies employed by this guy when he claims to have so much support for his argument. I'm guessing, however, he'll just blow off all opposing arguments as being "right-wing propaganda". Why is it that people will always scream about the support they have for their argument even when they have none? I don't get it. Even an animal learns not to stick its head someplace if it's going to get hurt... unless it's my dog. =P
Yeah, it's a mystery. One TV host told James Randi that Uri Gellar never touched a key that he bent. When Randi said to play the clip again, Geller had held the key for a full two minutes.
After the clip played, the host said, "That's not how it happened!"
By the way, do you know of a web site that compares the 1921 recession to the great depression? I'm having a hard time finding it. Granted, I tend to have difficulty locating anything without its own page on wikipedia, but still... =P
Only because of all of the stupid people who say what you just said and actually believe it. If all of these people were smart enough to realize that it IS a false dichotomy, and vote the way their conscience tells them, the third parties WOULD give them a run for their money. Instead, you let the two big parties brainwash you.
I don't waste my time voting. I'm not brainwashed, I'm just smart enough to realize that the people who own this country ain't gonna give it up and the average person is too fucking stupid to do anything. I'm not going to waste my time, I have more important shit to do.
Have you ever considered though that you're brainwashed into being a paranoid loser who makes stupid youtube videos about ridiculous utopias that will never exist. People are stupid, you can't change that.
I agree with you on the point you made on tracking minimum wage to inflation. Since money wages are sticky downwards, it significantly harms the ability of firms to adjust real wages through 'money illusion' which means that as demand drops due to the coming recession more jobs will be lost.
While they may be good arguments for a minimum wage, though pro-big business, the most often used ones I know of work by allowing inflation to eliminate the excesses of the cost increase.
Now, I have been thinking about this for a while. I am not sure you are right and this is a false dichotomy.
The idea occurs to me that the two main political parties are essentially monopoly powers on political advertising furthermore without the same competitive protection laws which are applied to the regular markets (dumping springs to mind).
I believe Noam Chomsky, famously anti-government, called this political advertising monopoly (duopoly really) "manufacturing consent"
Your video is ignorant and biased, Don clearly said he didn't Fully support either candidate, but based his vote on the fact that McCain's fear mongering tactics far outweighed those of Obama. Obama has never said anything that can be seen as scare tactic in Iran, talked about McCain being a terrorist socialist etc...., rather Obama just wants diplomacy and talk..... 1 star for you...
Ya got slammed by jarrah
NASAvsPETE1 4 weeks ago
That... isn't how minimum wage works in most countries. Just like a 14 year old can hold a paper route, without his employer being accused of breach of child labour laws, the minimum wage laws typically doesn't apply equally across the board.
What it usually actually does is make sure that even if the employer doesn't want to pay you minimum wage, he won't be able to find anyone with the same qualifications who will do it cheaper. It encourages the trend of hiring the best, not the cheapest man.
myrkvargkjetter 1 year ago
@myrkvargkjetter Then you don't need a MW law, because the price mechanism does that. Someone who isn't as qualified can work cheaper. The ONLY thing MW laws do is make it ILLEGAL for that less qualified person to work. And that IS how it works the world over, whether you want to admit it or not.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may be wrong. I don't have the knowledge (or interest) needed to defend the implementation of min. wage in the US. But, still, what I said is the observation I've made based on what I have seen, and although I'm fairly sure I am not seeing the entirety, and that, but what I actually do see really doesn't match with what you are saying.
That being said, I'm not objecting to most of your major points, only your invocation of "they took our jobs".
myrkvargkjetter 1 year ago
@shanedk Ya know what? I'm just wondering why the government wouldn't place a price tag on everyone for schooks. I mean, as in you have to pay for education. I mean, since the whole system is quite possibly a scam out from USA, why not make it worse?
Then again, it could be because they want power over office, which is by majority rule. :)
Denon333dash888 1 year ago
It really should be known by all by now that "THEY" don't want to fix the problem. "THEY" want to destroy our dollar and economy. Is that not evident by now to everyone? Hello?
cmonpeeps 1 year ago
What saddens me is that so many scientists have thrown their support for Obama because he said he would "Restore science to its rightful place." Now, as a budding scientist, I of course care deeply about science, but not at the expense of liberty. I feel these are among the intelligent people you mentioned who fall for this false dichotomy.
MandaloretheYoung 2 years ago
@MandaloretheYoung Ah, yes, the fakery about science funding.
Let's see, one of the first things Obama did in the area of government science and technology development policy was to kill manned spaceflight. Not reduce the funding, mind you, just direct NASA to not actually develop any actual man-rated boosters, capsules, or other equipment that would be needed. So, NASA will cost as much as ever, and produce rather less than before.
evensgrey 1 year ago
"I prefer the Silly Party, myself."
I prefer the Lemon Party. ;-P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Is'nt McCain a member there too? I mean agewise he'd fit in.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Maybe.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
In short: Fuck democracy.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 7
1:03 Energy healthcare and housing are skyrocketing. . . I got my facts from The Huffington Post.
I agree though, we should always question our politicians. I believe Obama is a better candidate. We should ALWAYS ALWAYS doubt politicians and never mindless
If you seriously think Mccain is a better qualified President... Then our conversation is over. But I'd understand if you were for a third party. A third party becoming President, is a pipe-dream.
zombieiscool 2 years ago
mindlessly follow politicians***
zombieiscool 2 years ago
Shane, have you ever wondered if maybe you're wrong? You're right, a lot of clever people don't agree with your political views, maybe you should think deeply as to why that is.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
I'm not the one misusing the suffering and oppression of millions to make his point.
shanedk 2 years ago
hmmm, interesting tactic, sidestep the issue and criticise one word in my comment that was clearly meant as a metaphor. Why am I not suprised?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
No, I am NOT side-stepping the issue! The data CLEARLY show that people are WORSE OFF with minimum wage! Your ONLY point was to use the word "slavery" to try and JUSTIFY that policy!
So, you're a liar, too, I see.
shanedk 2 years ago
Data? Employment levels INCREASED (again with needless caps ((being a free market capitalist does not give you to capitalise words ^^)) in the UK after the introduction of MW, the same is true across western Europe. I'm not going to make the case that introducing MW somehow increased productivity, but I will argue that it hasn't hurt it.
And I'd argue its better that people not work, than do so for less than MW. Why should anyone be expected to?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Oh, you did a proper regression analysis to make sure the employment levels rose because of MW and not in spite of it, did you? And that analysis was based on the proper controls? Please let us know in which peer-reviewed economic journal you had this work published.
Your argument that it's better to use FORCE to prevent people from working is DISGUSTNG and INHUMANE!
shanedk 2 years ago
Um... I did say that I wasn't going to argue that. Please read my comments before responding to them ¬.¬
I know that employment didn't increase as a result of MW, I only said that introducing MW didn't injure productivity or employment rates. There is an edge to this coin Shane, it don't always come up heads or tails.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
*rolls his eyes* If you're not going to meet your burden of proof, ship out.
That's bull. What it means is that productivity rose in spite of it, and would have risen even further were it not for the MW.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
And when have I advocated force exactly? Oh- its because I support a law, I forgot you have a paranoid and twisted view of legislation.
And BTW MW laws aren't in place to prevent people from working for less that MW, there to prevent employers from paying less than it. That could be purely semantic, but I think its a point worth making. Depends with whom your sympathies lie I suppose.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Government IS FORCE!!! The Minimum Wage IS FORCE!!! If someone goes to work for someone for less than the minimum wage, GOVERNMENT FORCE COMES IN TO STOP THEM!!!
Geez, and you wonder why I call you a dogmatist!
shanedk 2 years ago
You can work for nothing if you want I've no issue with people volunteering.
How many people do you know would choose to work for less? In the real world, nobody's going to cause a great fuss over being paid more than they would otherwise. I'm sure some people would do it to make a point, but honestly, they'd just be attention seekers being petty.
Alright, I'll use the word FORCE if you insist, I think its right that we FORCE employers to pay at least MW.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
So, you have NO problem with people working for nothing, or for over minimum wage, but you're willing to use GOVERNMENT FORCE to stop them from accepting anything in between? How evil can you get???
As far as people being "paid more than they would otherwise," you have NO evidence that this will be the case, and ALL SORTS of evidence that it won't!
Where's the extra money going to come from?
shanedk 2 years ago
Before we continue this, please clarify what exactly you mean by government force? Its such a vague phrase, and I feel it needs definition.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
or should I have needlessly caps'd it as you did?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Ah, the old standby: you have no reaction, so you make fun of a perfectly valid form of emphasis (employed by both Thomas Jefferson and Richard Dawkins).
Thank you for admitting you have no argument.
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane uses caps for emphasis. There's not much other way to do it here, as we can't use bbcode or html for formatting in bold.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Government force = use of force by government, in this case using force for preventing one from working. Duh!
shanedk 2 years ago
What FORCE would the government be employing? What tactics are you supposing they'd use if an employer refused to pay a measly £6 an hour? Unless you define your use of the word FORCE, this conversation can't move forward.
And BTW even if TJ and RD used caps only half as often as you, still doesn't make it necessary. Its confrontational and downright rude in this type of forum. As though you're trying to shout down dissent, ala O'Reilly.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Oh, COME ON!!! It happens ALL THE TIME!!! They come in and shut down places that hire people under the table so they can pay them less than MW. The businesses are SHUT DOWN, and those people are OUT OF WORK.
Now, stop your puerile bleating about caps and answer the question!
shanedk 2 years ago
What question haven't I answered?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Where will the extra money come from?
shanedk 2 years ago
If a business can't pay its employees MW, then the business is either failing, or has a bad model. There are schemes available in some countries to ease the burden on businesses that have a hard time paying MW, and so I'd suggest the business owner enrol in one of those programs (depending on which country the business is based in) choose to let go of staff, or close completely.
Why should the employee work for less, because of the incompetence or misfortune of the employer?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Oh, but it CAN pay its employees--or rather, it COULD were it not for the meddling of the likes of you! Instead, you condemn many poor people to unemployment and destroy small businesses left and right!
You're a corporatist fascist, nothing more, doing the bidding of the big corporations who can afford it, and say FUCK YOU to the small businesses--the lifeblood of the economy!
You're a hateful pawn for the rich, nothing more.
shanedk 2 years ago
How do you know it COULD pay its employees? I don't even know what business we're discussing, or are you assuming all businesses could pay more without the meddling of the likes of me! (never knew I was so influential ^^)
A corporate fascist? Of course, me advocating a workers right to demand enough to have a decent quality of life is not a fascist position, if anything its socialst (the opposite of fascism *pat pat*)
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Your ideas are EXACTLY the reasons why so many businesses are faced with moving overseas or closing down entirely. They are EXACTLY the reasons why corporations wield more and more power as time goes on.
shanedk 2 years ago
wawawawait, you don't know any of my politics beyond what we've discussed here. Please refrain from presuming you know what I advocate, and what effects they have and would have ¬.¬
gorypleasure 2 years ago
But you've said a LOT in our discussion! You've said OUTRIGHT that you'd rather relegate someone to unemployment than have them work for below the level your Holy Writ has set! You've said OUTRIGHT that you'd "save" businesses from this by giving them welfare, an option that is ONLY available to bigger corporations!
How are the small farmers doing under farm subsidies, huh? How many of them were "saved"?
shanedk 2 years ago
Um, did I say I support only making welfare available to bigger corporations? I don't think that's what I said, I'm sure I said that it keeps smaller businesses that can't afford to pay its employees MW afloat... hmmm I'm sure that was it.
For someone that often shouts about logical fallacies, you're guilty of them too.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
It's not about what you SAY, it's about the REALITY of how it works! Every single thing you have advocated are things that allow big corporations to keep profiting while keeping smaller competitors and start-ups at bay.
shanedk 2 years ago
Just because the US government only offers aid to huge businesses in trouble, doesn't mean thats how the rest of the world operates. Sure there are policies I disagree with, but you act as if life in the 21st century in the first world is terrible, when it just isn't the case. There are waves of new business enterprises starting up, many with government grants and loans.
As I said, I'm not too familiar with American politics, but your derogitory comments about politics apply to us all.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Corporate welfare is the same the world over.
And I NEVER said life was terrible. Stop lying. But I'm seeing first-hand the destruction of small businesses. I've seen almost my entire clientele wiped out in just a couple of years!
shanedk 2 years ago
Ah sou desu ne, bitterness.
Well, if you were living in a country with a greater sense of social democracy, then perhaps your business wouldn't be failing so. Or at least you'd have a safety net if it were to.
I've never understood you people that are in a weak position yet refuse help that would be available. Out of what? Pride? Well thats your problem.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Don't poison the stream for those people that aren't so stubborn. I've seen first hand that corporate welfare DOES give aid to small businesses that would've gone under without it.
Don't soil all nations policies with the same shit stick, there are government economic policies that have a positive impact on people lives.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Fine: where do I get it? Because they've DESTROYED my clientele, and my business is going to go under if things don't improve!
shanedk 2 years ago
Sorry, didn't see this message.
You'd get it by moving to a country with progressive poilicies as opposed to the Dickensian BS you guys have. Though I'm sure there are schemes available in the US, but as I said, I ain't American.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Wait--how the fuck are MY proposed policies Dickensian??? Do you have NO CLUE what you're talking about???
shanedk 2 years ago
Uh, because they are the sort of policies that were in place in Victorian England... hence Dickensian... self explainatory really *pat pat*
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Victorian England was NOT IN ANY WAY FREE MARKET, you foaming ignoramus!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
No, but nor did they have any social policies in place.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Sigh...They were MERCANTILIST policies. They MUCH more closely resembled the policies YOU advocate than the ones I do!!!
"Social policies" are just thinly-veiled corporatism, a subtle form of fascism, and a descendant of the mercantilism of old.
shanedk 2 years ago
"right... nurse we got a loony one here, bitching conspiracy nonsense again"
You are in way too deep Shane, social policies are thinly-veiled corporatism? Because of course the corporations are always lobbying in favour of social reform aren't they? Uh-huh, alright now I just feel bad for arguing with a lunatic. I guess your obvious anger issues shouldn't sounded that alarm.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Yes, as a matter of fact, they are! Who were the biggest lobbiests for the Clean Air Act? It was the biggest corporations that would be AFFECTED by it! Because they knew that THEY could afford to eat the costs of compliance, while their smaller competitors couldn't, and it would be more difficult for start-ups to form.
That's NOT a conspiracy theory, although I see you've gone with the dogmatist tactic of claiming it is anyway.
shanedk 2 years ago
And economic reform? That was what we were debating.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
No, we were discussing YOUR claim that MY policies were Dickensian.
Do you not have a response to my argument?
shanedk 2 years ago
The point about the Clean Air Act falls is a subset of what you call "economic reform".
You're just handwaving now.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Appeal to ridicule.
Because they can afford it?
Not to mention corporations are a creation of the state anyways, complete with a debt shield, far less taxation, less liability and exists as a legal entity unto itself.
Maybe more of us would be able to afford this stuff if we were taxed the same as corporations.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
This is the contradiction of the socialist.
If government helps businesses (this includes labor, fyi) and/or the rich at the expensive of everyone else (corporatism) it's the same as them not doing it and only punishing force/fraud (free market).
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Because a country (the USA) with all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto put into place by varying degrees and all 14 planks of the 1928 Socialist Party platform also put into place isn't progressive/socialist...
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
More broken window fallacy.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
The "safety net" is THE REASON WHY THEY'RE FAILING!!! And they're NOT doing better in those other Socialist paradises you so worship! In fact, many of them are going AWAY from Socialism towards a free market to save their economies!
shanedk 2 years ago
Evidence: I know its a pain in the backside, but you say these things without backing them up "don't impressa me much"
Oh- and I don't worship these socialist paradises, but when the UN ranks Norway as having the highest standard of living (lowest crime rates and higher median wages etc.) and Denmark are desperately trying to import workers because they've too many jobs available, I tend to take their side against those people that advocate the abolishment of their principals.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
I HAVE BACKED THEM UP!!! I have made VIDEO AFTER VIDEO BACKING THEM UP!!! I have provided SOURCE AFTER SOURCE AFTER SOURCE!!!
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT FROM ME???
shanedk 2 years ago
Nothing, I'm sick of this. You haven't answered my question, haven't acknowledged the examples I've given, and are just being terribly hostile without reason.
BTW I'll close by letting you know that you fucked up, one of these "socialist paradises" that I am so enamoured with, Sweden has no minimum wage. You could have easily bashed me over the head with that and you didn't, I was just testing that extensive knowledge of economics you profess to having :P
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Guy, YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!!!
Why the FUCK did I take HOURS of my own personal time (which, as a single father, I don't have much of) to make videos explaining this and presenting the evidence, if weasely, pathetic little self-righteous dogmatists like you WON'T EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THEM???
And then, even MORE dishonestly, bleat about that I haven't produced any evidence???
You're an ignorant fucktard, JUST like the creationists. You don't WANT to learn.
shanedk 2 years ago
Then answer me! What policy could be put in place to alter your view of government being a force of destruction?
And I'm not dogmatic, if progressive socialist countries all failed (massive deficits, high unemployment, high suicide rates etc. etc.) then I'd be quite willing to side with you guys. But they don't fail, they succeed, while the more capitalist countries, US, Lithuania, even the UK have fallen flat at each of these hurdles.
One last time, what would it take to change yours?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
My answer: show me a policy that's nondestructive. Show me EVIDENCE that it's non-destructive. But STOP going over things I've debunked in my videos without at least watching them, and above all, STOP LYING!!!
I mean, the Sweden crap you pulled was just DISGUSTING. Sweden HAS been discussed (as well as Hong Kong and other countries sans MW). You're just trying to make yourself superior. That's your ONLY motive here.
shanedk 2 years ago
I can't sit through any more of your videos, that high pitched whiny voice just grates away at my sanity. I prefer you in text.
You're the one in the position that needs defending. Its not up to me prove the government isn't destructive, just as it isn't the role of scientists to prove there is no god. Its kinda hard to prove a negative.
Give me an example of policy that would be beneficial, or admit that your position couldn't be changed by any action, which would make YOU the dogmatist!
gorypleasure 2 years ago
I HAVE defended myself, in NUMEROUS videos, which you REFUSE to watch. That makes you a WORTHLESS human being and it's useless to try and have a discussion with you.
shanedk 2 years ago
Worthless debating me? I've asked what should be a very simple question, which you REFUSE to answer for some reason... wonder what that might be. Why should I trawl through 174 videos, when you don't have the balls to answer my question? Guess that explains the voice... hmmmm.
As for me being a worthless human being, fuck you.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
Your question IS ANSWERED. DEAL with it, fucktard.
shanedk 2 years ago
Baaww.
Try sitting through this guy's videos /watch?v=xfUxZihdono and try telling me who has the whiny voice.
Just turn off the volume and read the captions.
Bullshit. You're the one making the positive claim that government polices (laws, taxes, etc) should be in place, ergo the burden is on you.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
*facepalm*
You have had your questions answered, both by me and Shane. You're the one being a disingenuous cunt by ignoring it.
Google "The Swedish Myth Debunked" to see why that's bullshit.
Also: mises (dot) org/Community/forums/t/5616 (dot )aspx Complete with sources to boot.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
where is the swedish myth debunked vid?
all I found was some stuff regarding other matters; even found a couple homophobic videos, and a video that caught a quote mine XD
Albukhshi 1 year ago
It's not a video, it's an article, and if you'd Googled it like he said you would have seen it as the first result.
shanedk 1 year ago
ooh! I see now. thanks.
looks like Sweden is pretty messed at this moment; low income in comparison to the US, lower growth, etc.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
Is that your definition of pretty messed up? Have you ever been to Sweden? Have you seen how good looking the people are? Have you seen how few beggars there are on their streets?
Defining success in terms of how much money you have in your pocket is a sure fire way to be unhappy.
versanil 1 year ago
Nice rhetoric. Nothing about the facts, though.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
I realise my argument is not scientific but my point is that happiness is not proportional to income. It's well understood that after you have been fed and sheltered, harmonious relationships are what make people happy. I bet there are plenty of studies that show Scandinavian lifestyle produces happy people despite the problems of an oversize government. Great channel BTW.
versanil 1 year ago
@shanedk Except Sweden actually does have it better than us.
Elendil176 1 year ago
@Elendil176 Yes, especially in the last 30 years or so when they started moving away from big government and towards greater liberty.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Since about 1935 Sweden has had a social democratic economy, with high, redistributive income tax and general welfare benefits (even when under conservative governments). However, the Swedish economic model, which has been similar to other Scandinavian countries and therefore are called the "Scandinavian model", is not entirely socialistic, since the goal has been to create a welfare state, not a state with collective ownership. It's not a dictatorship either.
Elendil176 1 year ago
@Elendil176 It's also been more and more free market over the last 30 years, with other social reforms such as school choice as well.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Actually, as a finnish libetarian I was quite suprised that the completely goverment run, Union controlled finnish school system is one of the toppest of the world. Including one of the bit older John Stossel documentaries, where he shows a list of best school system and picks number 2, Belgium, while at the top of the list there is Finland.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen Finland has both merit pay for teachers AND it has school choice. The upper secondary schools in Finland compete for students with the best performance. If you'd actually WATCHED the Stossel documentary, you would have seen that you CAN have competition within a government-run system.
And they also have a lot of the same problems as us, such as the difficulty of firing bad teachers. They also have a larger achievement gap than the US.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I know and I was thinking why Stollel wouldn't make even better point by pointing out that even by engaging competition in the socialist school system, you can get huge improvements.
I apology if I was trying to make a point against more competive school system, wich I support. I have been watching many of your videos and I have learned a great deal about common sense and economics, many lessons wich a secondary school student around here wouldn't get.
Thanks and apologies.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@shanedk
What do you mean "achievement gap"?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd The difference between the highest and the lowest achievers.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
That's what I thought.
Thanks. :)
vspqbd 1 year ago
economically speaking, yes. I never said anything about the health, happiness, or condition of the people themselves, which does not depend necessarily on money.
besides, I know quite a few swedes, and they are very happy-just like myself.
mind you, I live just below the US definition of the poverty line, and am very happy, and healthy. also pretty successful: lots of friends, good connections, etc.
so no, I don't judge happiness or success by money, which you imply I do.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
oh, and the fist sentance in my last comment is with the assumption that the paper is correct.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
Read Mary J. Ruwart's book (the one I linked you to) and look at the sources in the video about the false dichotomy and other economic videos for said evidence.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Democracy is mob rule.
It's a horrible system.
Just look at the Greek city states, or the Rome after the republic fell (they went from a democracy from an oligarchy under a progression of the Caesar's) into democracy before they were still a republic.
The safety net is a broken window fallacy.
Because it would be theft?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Hand waving with nothing to back it up.
Try again.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Because what happens as a result of the polices you advocate doesn't mean a thing to you, I take it.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Judging by what you advocate, I'd say it's not so much presumption as it is inductive reasoning.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
You're the one making the positive burden in your first comment.
Again, burden of proof.
Fascism and Socialism aren't mutually exclusive.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
As I said, please refer to the comment above yours, if a business can't afford to pay MW, I advocate programs to keep them solvent. How am I then doing the bidding of evil corparations, if I support doing everything we can to keep small businesses afloat?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
So, corporate welfare, then. That's worked SO well in the past...
shanedk 2 years ago
Um... yea, it works in other countries... jus' so ya know. I don't know much about the effects it had American commerce, but I know a number of people whose business's would've gone under without it, and are now self sufficient... so yea, corperate welfare's cool, if managed responsibly.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
EVERY study with proper controls done in EVERY country shows that it destroys jobs. You can't get around it.
As for corporate welfare, it's the "bailout" and "stimulus" we've been experiencing that is destroying small businesses as we speak!
shanedk 2 years ago
ORLY?
As for me being dogmatic...
As you know one of the principals of theory building is giving your opponent an example of what would disprove it. What policy could a government implement that in your view would improve peoples lives? And thats implementing policies, not making cutbacks. What evidence would it take, to get you to change your mind?
gorypleasure 2 years ago
How about, ANY evidence? But when EVERY properly-controlled study shows it's destructive, what am I to conclude?
You fucktards are JUST LIKE THE CREATIONISTS.
shanedk 2 years ago
Then link me to these properly controled studies in a PM, because as of yet in these comments and the video you haven't done so. Whereas I gave you an example of introducing MW that wasn't detrimental to productivity, you can easily view employment figures before and after its introduction, here in the UK or France, or Germany.
But what policy could the government implement, that in your view would disprove your hypothesis that government is fundamentally destructive? Don't evade the question.
gorypleasure 2 years ago
I've GIVEN the studies. Watch the videos and follow the links. They're there for a reason.
shanedk 2 years ago
YA RLY!
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Controlled studies, peer reviewed papers, and the like, please.
Heck, anything other than the bleating would be a good start.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
In other words increase start up costs for small business, which of course, will just make the problem worse.
No, they'll work for less because it's what the market values their labor at, duh.
That is of course, until they gain experience, work history, on the job training, etc, and are able to demand a higher wage.
Your solution doesn't take into account this concept of time and basically just says that we shouldn't even give them a chance to improve.
How elitist can you get?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I've already answered this question.
I'd say its merited, nor is he trying to shout down dissent. He can't talk over you like O'Reily does, so that point really doesn't hold.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
"Force: coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means" (Note that fraud is covered under this definition.)
Source: Princeton University's online dictionary.
I'd say that's a good one, wouldn't you agree, Shane?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Then why would you want to put a law that would do nothing but add more bureaucratic red tape and consume wealth?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Then why don't you let people do just that?
Judging by the unemployment data, I'd say many would choose to work for less if it meant having any income.
When it causes economic stagnation, employment, work sent overseas, etc, then yes, people will.
Good, because it's the accurate word.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Question: What happens if you choose to disobey an arbitrary law?
What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
If you do, you're thrown in prison, and if you resist that, you're shot: the epitome of force.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Source?
Because making $2 per hour is worse than making $0 per hour, amirite?
As for minimum wage: ruwart (dot) com/Healing/chap3 (dot) html complete with sources at the end of the free book too.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
You're the one making the positive claim that the laws should exist (later in the comments), the burden of proof is on you.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Appeal to authority.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
But if I don't vote, then the wrong lizard might get in.
stork5100 2 years ago 2
Haha! I love that bit!
shanedk 2 years ago
Off topic, but I hope you will be able to submit videos longer than 10:59 soon. Good luck with that (be it via a partnership, finding a better video blogging site, or youtube getting their heads out of their ass). :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Yep, I bought into Obamamania. I take full responsibility for my vote. Now I'm going to make it to C4L meetings to make up for it. If I can be turned, so can the rest of the sheep.
wunderbeast 2 years ago 2
I hear ya' man...believe me.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Fact: If I saw this video before the election, odds are I either wouldn't have voted, or voted third party (though probably not for Barr: Though I would have after hearing that he's changed his mind on social issues).
If I could redo that time again, I'd either:
1. Write in Ron Paul, or
2. Vote for Bob Barr.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Thank you again shane I wish I saw this back in november so I could have shown this vid to my brother. For me I already knew he was up to no good, so I stayed home. Good riddance. I was hung by a long noose when I voted Democrat in 2006 and boooooy did I feel betrayed. Nancy Pilosi tuned out to be a lying son of a bitch, and most of the senate and house who were democrat were just even hungrier for war.
pjfislord 2 years ago
Wow you son of a bitch. Quit yelling at me. Jesus Christ. Listening to you feels like I'm talking to my parents after I didn't finish my chors. I had to turn this off.
dskrilla1 2 years ago
Who did you vote for in the 08 presidential elections? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and Ralph Nader in the general election. I refused to buy into the Obama dream, which was never anything but a nightmare. And now his economic advisor is trying his best to make sure no white males get jobs through the stimulus which is really a waste anyway. Obama is blowing the money Americans are trying to save. 30+ states are passing 10th amendment bills, 2 have threatened to dissolve the union.
christo930 2 years ago 3
Ron Paul in the primary, Bob Barr in the general.
shanedk 2 years ago
Very interesting, though in truth I'm going to have to take an economics class to get some og your comments :)
Ryuwyvern 2 years ago
I suppose this is why Keynesian is a bad idea (as outlined in the CATO institute's videos in the channel I PM'ed to you)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Meaning that FDR = epic fail, amirite? :3
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Without even getting into the horrid New Deal policies, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent should put him on any moral person's Most Hated list.
shanedk 2 years ago
Write someone in, yourself if need be.
Problem solved. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I knew it.
We really need to get rid of that policy...
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Who'd you vote for?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Bob Barr.
shanedk 2 years ago
What is defined as a person?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
The Constitution doesn't define it.
shanedk 2 years ago
Crap!
XD
I meant to post this on your abortion video. lol
I'll send you a link via PM to The Atheist Experience's Pro-Life Rhetoric episode.
They make the cases quite well. :3
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
It's not a wasted vote when someone votes for a third party. If the third party gains enough support, one of the other two parties will adopt some of that third party's platform. It's happened in our past, and if republicans were smart, they would adopt some of the libertarian platform now.
ravingdead 2 years ago 2
The Republicans had the perfect opportunity with Ron Paul, and they blew it. He was the only one among them who could have given Hillary and Obama a run for their money. McCain was a joke.
Instead, they ostracized him because he was too much of a threat to their corporate interests. And so they lost as a result.
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
your right... i've been falling for these things...
thanks i'll try hard to be more careful.
P.S. VERY informative videos! i'm not going to believe u 100% on anything, b/c no one's right 100% of the time ... but still... good job!
Immevu 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is a fucking goofball. what a fag. i think hes gay too.
ponic420h 3 years ago
Fail logic.
JamesJimRaynor 3 years ago
Rather than voting I decided to get a couple hours of extra sleep. I stand by my decision as being the most beneficial.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
this guy is talking crap, we are a socialist country in britain not comunist, and we get along ok with socialist policys, and we have a minimum wage scheme, and so far it has got 1.4 million ppl into work since magret thatcher had 3 million unemployed, we also added education to the social system for work seakers to get them educated enough to take the employment available, and by the way the conservatives said the same thing about these policys, 1million more unemployed, it didnt happen.
tersse 3 years ago
Yeah, right. That must be why you have greater per capita unemployment than we do, inflation that outpaces even the growth of the government sector, and a greater percentage of your population on welfare, and we won't even get into the average four-month wait for non-elective surgery. Oh, and how's the nationalization of even more banks working out for you?
shanedk 3 years ago
You forget that USA's unemployment rates are artificially shortened.
JamesJimRaynor 3 years ago
WTF are you talking about? "Artificially shortened" how???
The BLS calls people up and asks them two questions: "Are you out of work?" and "Are you currently seeking work?" If the answer to both is "yes," you go down as unemployed.
shanedk 3 years ago
It's always been my degree of observation that while one politician would lie through their teeth to appeal to the stupid the other may just do the same thing, except be more subtle, be more sneaky and so forth to appeal to the intellectual... although i don't blame this on anything attributed to it... as DonExodus apparently doesn't do his research on politics, but then again this is the fault for more people... but yah have to say this.. do you sarah palin as VP? doubt it
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
I didn't vote for that exact reason
darkdragonsoul99 3 years ago
(Cont. from last message) As for libertarians, well, as far as I am concerned they are a right wing party who have no faith in the common good, and look out for themselves and to hell with everyone else.
If I had to guess, those yahoos who set up militias on the potty notion that the government is out to get them, are probably all libertarians
steelhamster 3 years ago
The minimum wage argument just left me agog at your ignorance. Left to the market, wages would be so low, that people would be little more than bonded serfs. You seem worried about those poor rich people at the top, and less worried about the 90 percent of the population who live from paycheck to paycheck. You hate socialism, although I doubt you know what it actually is, you say you have read Karl Marx, but it's clear you have no clue about the difference between communism and socialism.
steelhamster 3 years ago
It's amazing how you accuse me of ignorance and then make two posts full of the most ignorant tripe I've read in a long time--and yes, that includes from creationists and moon hoaxers!
I have tons of studies and data backing me up. What do you have?
shanedk 3 years ago
OOohh education, research, well reasoned arguments, non strawmen arguments and so much more. Thanks for the input, just confirms what I have guessed about your point of view.
steelhamster 3 years ago
Uh-huh. You realize that you're denying something that isn't even controversial among economists, that you'll learn in ANY beginning macroeconomics class, right?
shanedk 3 years ago
"Left to the market, wages would be so low, that people would be little more than bonded serfs."
Straw man argument.
"You seem worried about those poor rich people at the top, and less worried about the 90 percent of the population who live from paycheck to paycheck."
Ad Hominem
"As for libertarians, well, as far as I am concerned they are a right wing party who have no faith in the common good, and look out for themselves and to hell with everyone else."
Straw man + Ad hominem
Virgil0211 3 years ago
Actually, it's more of a Chicken Little than a Strawman. "Left to the market, rainbows would turn into toxic waste and kill everything!"
I've always been amused by that argumentation.
shanedk 3 years ago
Well, still, I figured it would be useful to point out just a few of the fallacies employed by this guy when he claims to have so much support for his argument. I'm guessing, however, he'll just blow off all opposing arguments as being "right-wing propaganda". Why is it that people will always scream about the support they have for their argument even when they have none? I don't get it. Even an animal learns not to stick its head someplace if it's going to get hurt... unless it's my dog. =P
Virgil0211 3 years ago
Yeah, it's a mystery. One TV host told James Randi that Uri Gellar never touched a key that he bent. When Randi said to play the clip again, Geller had held the key for a full two minutes.
After the clip played, the host said, "That's not how it happened!"
shanedk 3 years ago
Kinda like the way some people are with the great depression, eh?
Virgil0211 3 years ago
Yep. Part 5 is probably going to get the woos going on that again.
shanedk 3 years ago
Looking forward to it. Can't wait. =D
By the way, do you know of a web site that compares the 1921 recession to the great depression? I'm having a hard time finding it. Granted, I tend to have difficulty locating anything without its own page on wikipedia, but still... =P
Virgil0211 3 years ago
The 1921 crash should be included in any comparison of the worst stock market crashes in American history.
shanedk 3 years ago
False dichotomy? We may technically have more than one choice, but those choices have no chance of winning. This is a two party system. Period.
jmrios1984 3 years ago
Only because of all of the stupid people who say what you just said and actually believe it. If all of these people were smart enough to realize that it IS a false dichotomy, and vote the way their conscience tells them, the third parties WOULD give them a run for their money. Instead, you let the two big parties brainwash you.
shanedk 3 years ago
I don't waste my time voting. I'm not brainwashed, I'm just smart enough to realize that the people who own this country ain't gonna give it up and the average person is too fucking stupid to do anything. I'm not going to waste my time, I have more important shit to do.
Have you ever considered though that you're brainwashed into being a paranoid loser who makes stupid youtube videos about ridiculous utopias that will never exist. People are stupid, you can't change that.
jmrios1984 3 years ago
I agree with you on the point you made on tracking minimum wage to inflation. Since money wages are sticky downwards, it significantly harms the ability of firms to adjust real wages through 'money illusion' which means that as demand drops due to the coming recession more jobs will be lost.
While they may be good arguments for a minimum wage, though pro-big business, the most often used ones I know of work by allowing inflation to eliminate the excesses of the cost increase.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Now, I have been thinking about this for a while. I am not sure you are right and this is a false dichotomy.
The idea occurs to me that the two main political parties are essentially monopoly powers on political advertising furthermore without the same competitive protection laws which are applied to the regular markets (dumping springs to mind).
I believe Noam Chomsky, famously anti-government, called this political advertising monopoly (duopoly really) "manufacturing consent"
Any thoughts?
Xorinite 3 years ago
Your video is ignorant and biased, Don clearly said he didn't Fully support either candidate, but based his vote on the fact that McCain's fear mongering tactics far outweighed those of Obama. Obama has never said anything that can be seen as scare tactic in Iran, talked about McCain being a terrorist socialist etc...., rather Obama just wants diplomacy and talk..... 1 star for you...
JohnPorkLord 3 years ago
"Obama has never said anything that can be seen as scare tactic in Iran,"
Oh, now THAT'S the biggest lie EVER!!! He's talking up the whole Iran's-getting-nuclear-bombs bogosity JUST as much as McCain if not more!!!
As for trash-talking McCain, have you READ Obama's website?
Total cult-level denial...
shanedk 3 years ago
didnt obama say he was going use the same faith based programs as bush?
JJTecumseh87 3 years ago