My first job was cutting grass for a local catering company, not a big corporation. I saved up all summer to buy a new bike. Jobs create wealth, period. Not the other way around.
how about this ........if everyone would pay (lets say 15%) taxes and not only those "rich" guys,then no one can bitch that the rich guys (who provides the jobs btw) get a taxbreak,you see i never ever have seen a "poor" guy holding a sign "now hire for a job opening" and i also never ever have heard a "poor" guy bitching that they pay to much taxes (because they dont pay any at all,fed income e.g.)
@Hoschi0913 i agree with you on most what you said except that rich guys provide the jobs.... that is incorrect. Countries with the least economic disparity and the highest quality of life have a strong middle class, they do not rely on the top 10% to provide the jobs. The long term implications of these tax cuts is causing some millionaires to want to pay their share because they know in the long run they will not stay as rich if the economy is faultering.
you got a point with the rich guys and the long run thing,i would look out for my company and the long therm as well if i had one,but (in my opinion) if the gov't would get out of the way with over regulating (almost) everything,regular folks could create company's and provide jobs as well and therefore strengthen the so called middle class,sure some regulation have to be there for workers safety and safe envirement to work in and ppl still have the choice not to work for the rich
@Hoschi0913 I agree, the problem however is that we do not regulate businesses int his country as you think. For one, in the 1950s corporate taxes made up 30% of GDP; today it is 6% and dropping. Along with other things, this fact alone distinctly shows how deregulated our private sector is... it is scary and although theoretically I like your stance, in practice it is not working. The truth is, in the present time, CEOs and executives care more about their greed, than being a good capitalist
well thats something you never get rid of ,the greed,but i dont believe that most or all CEO's are just greedy,sure you start a company to make money and first it is all about greed,but soon enough its more like keeping the company alive and well to provide for the workers and here and there some "feel good" charity,i think it would be best to get rid of this progressive tax system,where a few pay for the rest,and no iam not jealouse for the rich having all that money
for me it is sort of funny to see how some ppl try to stear up the masses (or poor ppl) ,in making them believe that the rich dont pay their fair share in taxes,while those ppl barely pay any at all,makes me wonder who is more greedy,the rich with their companys or the poor with wanting (most all) things for free,besides there is no such thing as poor or rich,its just a question of how high you set your standard of living that defines it,but then again if ppl cant bitch,they dont feel good
@Hoschi0913 It's not about being jealous that the rich make all the money... it has been empirically seen that the progressive tax system works best and is the most beneficial to society at large. Corporations do not need tax cuts if their CEOs give themselves billions in bonuses. If there was less taxation and if the progressive tax was done away with, we would be living under business oligarchs who have control over the "free market".
@Hoschi0913 "for me it is sort of funny to see how some ppl try to stear up the masses (or poor ppl) ,in making them believe that the rich dont pay their fair share in taxes." Noone needs to make anybody believe anything, because it is fact that the top 10% have received tax cuts that already added 2.5 trillion to the deficit. If you are saying that someone who works real hard and cannot afford, say, health insurance is greedy for saying that they deserve the right to basic care..
@Hoschi0913 2) thats why in places like the UK, many laugh at Robert Nozick, Milton Freidman, and Fredrich Hyek and Ayn Rand because their theories are naive and simply dont work. The Right started rising in the 70s and into the 80s... if they were right and if the country has been predominately 'Right' since then.. we should be in a golden age lol. Again, the progressive tax system flourishes because it builds a strong middle class that is made up of most of a state's citizens
sounds reasonable,but still 2 issues,1.why you insist on this "class" categorisation? in the end even the CEO's do work and could be seen as part of the "working class",with higher pay i admit,still they do a job too, 2.with higher tax on corporation/company's,you do realize that those same company's (and the owner thereof),could choose to do their business someplace else (outsource) where they do not have to pay that much taxes,like alot did in recent years,who pays the taxes then?
@Hoschi0913 1) however taboo it may be in America, the relationships between the classes is imporant and should be talked about. The most well to do countries of the world when it comes to quality of life and economic status is directly related to the economic disparity of the country. I am not saying we go to all socialist policies like in Sweden, but look at Australia, south korea, germany. They have high capitalistic societies but yet they flourish because of a strong middle class
@Hoschi0913 and this middle class is even made up of small business owners who are encourages to practice their entrepreneurial ability without being sucked up by walmart. 2) I'm glad you brought up the outsourcing argument because outsourcing is not inherently bad, the problem is that instead of taking the increased business profits due to decreased production costs and investing here and FDI to create jobs... they are instead used to give bonuses to the top players of the corporation.
i wouldnt use germany as an example,iam a german (not living there no more) and i can tell you that the "high capitalistic class" over there is handcufft by enormous regulation and restriction and iam pretty sure it is the same in at least North Korea,which means that entrepreneurs dont even get a chance to develope or pursue their ideas,as a matter of fact i know someone in germany that wanted to put a goethermal heating system in his multifamily house(cost $30.000).........
.....after the Officials was through with him and his idea,the cost would had been $300.000,so he abolished his idea and didnt do it,would have heated the entire house with no pollusion,but regulation didnt permit it,thats how germany works,now outsourcing,cant be good simple because of the missing revenue and lost jobs,yes of course those increase profits will be used (invested) in better CEO's e.g.,thats why you build a company,to make money,if you can make more for less...who isnt for it?
...the thing is to make an envirement and find a balance in which companys pay willingly enough taxes,yet still want to come / stay here and build their product(provide jobs),to much taxes=outsourcing,not enough taxes="pesky" CEO's filling their pockets,thats the trick and right now with this administration,i dont see any balance,its either way all for the "workers" or leave,and alot didnt stay
ok my bad ,south korea then,still i think it apply' to them too,i dont think we should look at what others do and use them as example,i rather would look at our own history first and see what did work (like Coolidge and Harding) and what didnt work (Woodrow Wilson),might be bad examples,but representative in my opinion,simple put,its not about the classes or rich and poor(as some wants to make you believe),its about how to make a good living for as many as possible
@Hoschi0913 "it's about how to make a good living for as many as possible." Thats a good utilitarian view, but unfortunately for you it is contradictory to what you think would achieve this objective. Utilitarians would not agree with you because the problem is that the USA regulations are not in correlation with the idea to make a good living for as many as possible. 2) If we do not use comparative examples throughout the world, that undermines education and the undertaking of seeking truth
@Hoschi0913 thats how education grows lol by looking at the world around us. You are pulling the 'special pleading' card by saying we must only examine our ways first -_-. That has no substance to it, you cannot just look at the history of our own country, you must also look at the history of others. Your philosophy esp since the reagan years has crippled the ability of people to make a good living in this country. 1/4 of our children are in poverty; it's pathetic
you got me wrong,i did not say we should "ONLY" look at our history,i said we should look FIRST at ours,there is alot that we could rediscover and learn again,but you have a good point.."USA regulations are not in correlation with the idea to make a good living for as many as possible",thats true and here is why in my opinion,the job of the Gov't is to provide"general"guidelines for all,NOT to regulate as much as they can down to the detail and thats what they are doing....
..your 2.point...undermining education??come on now,remember it is your life and YOU have to make the best out of it,if you dont get the education you like,seek it yourself in a library,they have tons of books and writen material that you can use and mostly for free as well,same as you buy your TV (example) that you like in the place you can get it,you dont settle for less dont you?the reason why ppl got "crippled in their ability" is because they stopped to strive for a better and of course....
...the overwhelming down to the detail regulations of the gov't that thinks they know better/best whats good for the ppl,simply putt ,when you start to rely on someone else to run your life,you dont deserve better,same like Obama wants to put out 10.000 engineers each year,nice thought,but in the long run,who is going to produce the food they need,without any farmers?,you gotta look on all sides of the metal,not only the shiny one ;)
@Hoschi0913 I've heard the "dependency" card on govt many times and it has no substance, esp since it is in reference to the extreme which is not the case. The problem is this country has been on the right for awhile and even though our economy doubled int he 80s, wages remain stagnant. What is govt doing by regulating down to the detail? They been letting businesses get away with alot.
@Hoschi0913 1) Remember I said before, that the US government is so lenient with businesses and wall street... you remember how easy wall street got off? 2) Even though you would rather look at our history first (which is fine) you must not only educate yourself on that. And I do use a variety of sources. 3) I am one that likes to counter the bad sides of the free market system (i.e. healthcare, education, etc.). In some cases it is good to have input from leading economists
you can call it "dependency card",its actualy a good name for it and it hits the nail on the head,no substance and extreme?,i dont really think so and i believe the 47million ppl on foodstamps are not extreme either,the extrem part on it is that it is so many ppl,i agree on point 1 of you theyis lenient and shouldnt be involved at all in the first place,point 2 do i need to inform myself sure all the time,i agree,point 3 may i remind you that we are suppose to be a Republic ....
.....not a Democracy or democratic Republic,which in my believe means that ppl first and foremost should be selfreliant and support each other,without the elected gov't interventions,like healthcare/education,which the gov't seems to make a right,while it is not or try's to put their propaganda (left or right) into the education and yes i agree the free market doesnt only have beauty pretty sides,it also has disadvantages,but the important part is that it regulates itself.....
....in my opinion,like when you have a shitty product ,you wont sell much of it or none at all,unlike the current administration that sells us crap all the time and we have to buy,due to their own regulations,see Germany,the gov't is the SERVANT of the people NOT vis versa
@Hoschi0913 there is nothing wrong with public programs, in fact, nationalized healthcare in other western countries is seenon the right on promoting self-responsibility. the foodstamp example is not the greatest, although there are flaws in the welfare system, robust individualists have no credibility and still seek handouts in natural disasters. the third point you mentioned doesnt make sense. Last time I checked France is in its fifth republic. BTW, constitutions change
you got several good point,no nationalized healthcare is promoting selfresponsibility,instead this "safety net" ,just like Welfare becomes a Humack and people stop to providing for themselfs,handouts..best example is and was Kathrine,you see ppl in NewOrleans standing in the water and waiting for the gov't to take care oft them,instead of moving/walking out of there,how stupid is that?you right constitutions are changing,our is designed that way too,due to the amendment process....
....and it did change over the years,example Amendment 18 section 1 (prohebition),was it good? did it help the nation and the people?nope,it didnt,yet it is still in there for us to remember what is not working,the flaw you mention is this "dependancy card" and a gov't that decides over the heads of the people,thats some reason why frances contitution is in such bad shape,they dont have the option of "updating" it,like we have
@Hoschi0913 your fallacy: appeal to speculation. I know someone personally who deals with people on welfare; and most of the time in his experience he sees most of the welfare recipients find a job and go off welfare. You saying "Welfare becomes a Humack and people stop providing for themselves.." means nothing to me. What I said about self-responsibility about nationalized healthcare is correct. People pay for nationalized healthcare like any other healthcare program...
@Hoschi0913 and a nationalized healthcare system promotes self-responsibility so a person who is ill/disabled/w/e, can get care right away without making themselves worse and rely on more tax money to get better when it is in its worse stages (preventative care is cheaper). Nationalized healthcare is not for profit. So someone who can get better right away, and therefore come back to work sooner, be more efficient at work, get better asap without infecting others,
@Hoschi0913 , does not take as many sick days, does not take any compensation from a company in relations to certain ailments or disabilities, etc. I say that's pretty self-responsible. Btw, your New Orleans example is not a good one. Yeah ppl were stuck on roofs of houses..some prob couldnt swim or maybe some were hurt and couldnt swim. In a figurative sense, ppl wanted to be saved esp to keep the law and order in the area.
lets assume for a second iam so totaly wrong and you are absolutely right,when it comes to the nationalized HC,as you say"People pay for nationalized healthcare like any other healthcare program",that means to me that everyone is mandated to have HC-Insurance,furthermore it means to me that people just dont care that much about their health status as that they are insured and dont have to worry about it anyways,since they can get treatment anytime they choose...
....no need to be selfresponsible,they been taken care of and what about the younger generation that barely gets sick,do they have to have insurance too? you know they could use that money to pay off student loans or others to pay off some mortages,Welfare..as examples from other country's show,a cut down on the time for welfare benefits,cleary indicates the people are way earlier "motivated" to get of off Welfare,knowing the benefits will end very soon,hence my comparison .....
..of the safety net becoming a Humack,New Orleans...people down there had 3-4 days warning that a Kathrina is approaching,yet alot did stay regardless and those are the people you see on rooftops waiting for rescue and help,so even it is their own fault,we still helped them,to top it off,gov't official went around and did confisciate all weapons in that area to uphold the law,which raises the question,how is a citizen able to defend themself if someone breaks into their house and wants to loot?
...by the end of the day and looking at all angles and issues we did discuss,to me it is very obvious that the gov't is NOT the solution,it is the one that starts the problems,while trying to convince people that it is the best solution,however i do welcome your opinion and you got some valid good points,still it is not all sunshine,on my part same as on your part,i believe men can rule himself,seems to me you do not,but thats ok too,in the end,everyone has to live his live with what they got
@Hoschi0913 robust individualism has no credibility and the free market assumes all can attain whatever they want by circumstance which is entirely false. The govt can help problems that doesnt mean I think they are always perfect for every solution. Govt cares about the welfare of the people, businesses dont, all they care about is ppl paying money for their product. The private sector brought us into this economic crisis.
@Hoschi0913 The CEO did not attain his job and success purely on his own. He wouldnt have been so successful without his workers, the government giving him carte blanche for free enterprise, his/her own advisors, his/her education taught to him by professors, and of course the customers that keep the business going. Yes, one can say in general he worked hard to ge thimself there, but the robust individualist cringes everytime its pointed out that it is naive to think he could do it without...
@Hoschi0913 the world around him. "I believe men can rule himself." Individuals do not care about the economy, they care about themselves. The problem is u just have this untangible mistrust of government and speculate broadly on issues of welfare and pull typical cards that Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin pull. The world of Adam Smith is gone, John Keynes has taken over and the world has moved on.
i agree on two things with you,1.i do not trust the gov't,that is correct and no i will not tell you why,2. yes the CEO wouldnt had come that far,if he wouldnt had tried or got off his ass with the goal in sight to become a CEO one day,its also obvious to me now that you do not understand the concept of "men rule themselfs",there is a huge difference between that concept and being selfcentered ("Individuals do not care about the economy, they care about themselves") as you see it..
..the way i see it,that is something you could research and find out for yourself,also as you say "robust individualism has no credibility and the free market assumes all can attain whatever they want by circumstance which is entirely false",i dont think so,cuz every person is a individual,the CEO,the President,a Cop so on and they are robus,otherwise they couldnt do the job and they are also credible or we had a lousy president e.g.,yes all can atain whatever they want.....
...they just have to get up their ass and go for it,like Herman Cain for example (assuming he didnt lie),he went from a "poor" son of a famer on the fields to a CEO or Obama went from a "poor" guy to be President,so i guess your gov't made that happen,as you seem to claim,btw i dont know Sarah Palin nor Michelle Bachmann,never meet them,have seen them on TV yes,but thats all,so i can not comment nor tell what their personal position on things are,besides its their position not mine
@Hoschi0913 imagine ppl coming together under a veil of ignorance, not knowing any self-status of who they would be in a certain society. We also do not know our advantages or disadvantages. Since noone would have a superior bargaining position, the principles agreed upon for the social contract would be just. You must ask yourself what principles self-interested persons would choose if found in this position. as moral agents we are defined not by our ends but by our CAPACITY for choice
@Hoschi0913 It is not our aims that primarily reveal our nature, it is rather the framework of rights we would choose if we could abstract from our aims. NOONE under this hypothetical contract would choose libertarian philosophy. 2) your vision of freedom and autonomy is flawed. If we understand ourselves as free and independent selves, unbound by moral ties we haventchosen, we cant makesense of moral and political obligations we recognize: solidarity, loyalty,religion,etc that shape identity
why you think there has to be someone with "superior bargain"? and why needs there to be a "social contract"?what makes you think morals have no standing with free people?its the opposite,it is essential,that also have respect for each other and the needs thereof.it is not a framework that defines us,its the people we surround us with,peolpe with honesty and honor,striving to be the best they can be for themself and others...
@Hoschi0913 I never said that there is someone with "superior bargain." I use social contract because one of the social contract theorists' (Locke) was used int he fabrication of this country. I never said morals have no standing with free people. And your last sentence just proved my point why the hypothetical contract works...no one in that group would want an unregulated completely free market system because noone would know what position in society each would hold.
btw you should have added in your prior statement that you quote in part Professor Sandel,since it is not coming out of your own,but guess thats a detail thats easy to miss,right?
@Hoschi0913 yes its from sandel, but I paraphrased and yes, your idea of what "freedom" is, is naive and superficial; it's self-defeating and make moral individualism invalid. LOL you probably were copying and pasting my phrases into google
....there is no need for any political obligation,unlike you,i imagine people come together under a veil of courage,standing up for each other and what is right,people do recognize liberty and freedom
@Hoschi0913 "I imagine people come together under a veil of courage. standing up for each other and what is right, people do recognize liberty and freedom." And these ppl would think the same thing under the veil of ignorance whether they would be public service workers or not. I see your double standard. Your outright distrust of government is understandable but intrinsically does not make sense since we are able to vote ppl out of office, unlike corrupt businessmen.
and you are the one that is naive in believing whatever this professor (or alike) is telling you without question,since you are "only" 27,you are way to young to notice the pycholigical and socialist elements in his speech you have on your channel,see i didnt google it,guess iam not that stupid and uninformed as you may thought iam,so as for now,since none of my arguments hold any value to you,cuz they are all flawed in your opinion,i will not waste my time with you no more....
....instead i strongly suggest to you to educate yourself,first on the history of this country (read the original documents,not what someone tells you how it was),find out the meaning of things behind its creation (yes you have to use your own brain) and in about 20 - 30 years after you got some life experience and had actualy a chance to compare your (right now) thoughts with reality,we talk again,until then ..keep on learning
@Hoschi0913 LOL lamest counter I heard. You pulled the whole age card which is irrelevant and that basically means you cannot argue anymore, because quite a few times you said I had great points...that should tell you something...maybe an old dog can learn new tricks
to you everything is irrelevant,except your point of view which is the only one you will accept,that shows your ignorance,in the entire conversation,all you did is talking about some theories of some people you never known nor meet and have no references to reality,futhermore your pitty attempt to make fun of me and play the "age card" shows a lag of respect and your lag of (once again) life experience,so let me make you feel like you are a winner.....
@Hoschi0913 I played the age card to show through logical analogy how pointless it was to pull that card on me. No sir, I do not think any opinion other than mine is irrelevent. I exposed alot of holes in your thinking. You believe a few (the wealthy few) I responsible for providing jobs. Sorry dude, that even goes against the so called free market utopia you strive for... the rest of the populace relies onthe few 10% to provide jobs? What is this? the third world?
@Hoschi0913 Oh and tax breaks for the top wealthy do crap. Again, if corporate taxes have decreased since the 50s, the economy doubled since 1988, and the top 10% got a tax cut..with your logic everything should be a lot better but its not because its all BS. The CEOs just take that extra money, give themselves an added bonus and still strip departments within the corporation leaving ppl jobless. This has nothing to do with partisanship... its called I'm not an idiot
@Hoschi0913 3) you need to realize youa re the one who is extreme, I am asking for middle ground which goes to show how screwed up this country is in politics. I refuse to be a slave to corporate oligarchs, who can rule authoritatively and therefore can do whatever they want, no matter what ppl think. I like capitalism but we also must counter the bad side effects. That is all I have been saying and you to disagree with that is pretty peculiar since it is a typical moderate view
Obama promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. He pledged to end Bushs warrantless wire tapping and now defends it. He decried Rendition and now continues it. He promised that he would end Bushs practice of indefinite detention and instead, he expanded it to permanent detention without trial. He has doubled the debt in only 6-months and is expanding the wars!
Yet Obamabots STILL have faith in their god? FOOLS!!
My first job was cutting grass for a local catering company, not a big corporation. I saved up all summer to buy a new bike. Jobs create wealth, period. Not the other way around.
bradjbourgeois73 5 months ago
If you want the economy back on track get rid of the bush tax cuts to the rich that helped precipitate the economic crisis.
Radetzky19 1 year ago
@Radetzky19
how about this ........if everyone would pay (lets say 15%) taxes and not only those "rich" guys,then no one can bitch that the rich guys (who provides the jobs btw) get a taxbreak,you see i never ever have seen a "poor" guy holding a sign "now hire for a job opening" and i also never ever have heard a "poor" guy bitching that they pay to much taxes (because they dont pay any at all,fed income e.g.)
Hoschi0913 8 months ago
@Hoschi0913 i agree with you on most what you said except that rich guys provide the jobs.... that is incorrect. Countries with the least economic disparity and the highest quality of life have a strong middle class, they do not rely on the top 10% to provide the jobs. The long term implications of these tax cuts is causing some millionaires to want to pay their share because they know in the long run they will not stay as rich if the economy is faultering.
Radetzky19 8 months ago
@Radetzky19
you got a point with the rich guys and the long run thing,i would look out for my company and the long therm as well if i had one,but (in my opinion) if the gov't would get out of the way with over regulating (almost) everything,regular folks could create company's and provide jobs as well and therefore strengthen the so called middle class,sure some regulation have to be there for workers safety and safe envirement to work in and ppl still have the choice not to work for the rich
Hoschi0913 8 months ago
@Hoschi0913 I agree, the problem however is that we do not regulate businesses int his country as you think. For one, in the 1950s corporate taxes made up 30% of GDP; today it is 6% and dropping. Along with other things, this fact alone distinctly shows how deregulated our private sector is... it is scary and although theoretically I like your stance, in practice it is not working. The truth is, in the present time, CEOs and executives care more about their greed, than being a good capitalist
Radetzky19 8 months ago
@Radetzky19
well thats something you never get rid of ,the greed,but i dont believe that most or all CEO's are just greedy,sure you start a company to make money and first it is all about greed,but soon enough its more like keeping the company alive and well to provide for the workers and here and there some "feel good" charity,i think it would be best to get rid of this progressive tax system,where a few pay for the rest,and no iam not jealouse for the rich having all that money
Hoschi0913 8 months ago
for me it is sort of funny to see how some ppl try to stear up the masses (or poor ppl) ,in making them believe that the rich dont pay their fair share in taxes,while those ppl barely pay any at all,makes me wonder who is more greedy,the rich with their companys or the poor with wanting (most all) things for free,besides there is no such thing as poor or rich,its just a question of how high you set your standard of living that defines it,but then again if ppl cant bitch,they dont feel good
Hoschi0913 8 months ago
@Hoschi0913 It's not about being jealous that the rich make all the money... it has been empirically seen that the progressive tax system works best and is the most beneficial to society at large. Corporations do not need tax cuts if their CEOs give themselves billions in bonuses. If there was less taxation and if the progressive tax was done away with, we would be living under business oligarchs who have control over the "free market".
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 "for me it is sort of funny to see how some ppl try to stear up the masses (or poor ppl) ,in making them believe that the rich dont pay their fair share in taxes." Noone needs to make anybody believe anything, because it is fact that the top 10% have received tax cuts that already added 2.5 trillion to the deficit. If you are saying that someone who works real hard and cannot afford, say, health insurance is greedy for saying that they deserve the right to basic care..
Radetzky19 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Radetzky19 ....2) then you are out of touch
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 2) thats why in places like the UK, many laugh at Robert Nozick, Milton Freidman, and Fredrich Hyek and Ayn Rand because their theories are naive and simply dont work. The Right started rising in the 70s and into the 80s... if they were right and if the country has been predominately 'Right' since then.. we should be in a golden age lol. Again, the progressive tax system flourishes because it builds a strong middle class that is made up of most of a state's citizens
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
sounds reasonable,but still 2 issues,1.why you insist on this "class" categorisation? in the end even the CEO's do work and could be seen as part of the "working class",with higher pay i admit,still they do a job too, 2.with higher tax on corporation/company's,you do realize that those same company's (and the owner thereof),could choose to do their business someplace else (outsource) where they do not have to pay that much taxes,like alot did in recent years,who pays the taxes then?
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 1) however taboo it may be in America, the relationships between the classes is imporant and should be talked about. The most well to do countries of the world when it comes to quality of life and economic status is directly related to the economic disparity of the country. I am not saying we go to all socialist policies like in Sweden, but look at Australia, south korea, germany. They have high capitalistic societies but yet they flourish because of a strong middle class
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 and this middle class is even made up of small business owners who are encourages to practice their entrepreneurial ability without being sucked up by walmart. 2) I'm glad you brought up the outsourcing argument because outsourcing is not inherently bad, the problem is that instead of taking the increased business profits due to decreased production costs and investing here and FDI to create jobs... they are instead used to give bonuses to the top players of the corporation.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
i wouldnt use germany as an example,iam a german (not living there no more) and i can tell you that the "high capitalistic class" over there is handcufft by enormous regulation and restriction and iam pretty sure it is the same in at least North Korea,which means that entrepreneurs dont even get a chance to develope or pursue their ideas,as a matter of fact i know someone in germany that wanted to put a goethermal heating system in his multifamily house(cost $30.000).........
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
.....after the Officials was through with him and his idea,the cost would had been $300.000,so he abolished his idea and didnt do it,would have heated the entire house with no pollusion,but regulation didnt permit it,thats how germany works,now outsourcing,cant be good simple because of the missing revenue and lost jobs,yes of course those increase profits will be used (invested) in better CEO's e.g.,thats why you build a company,to make money,if you can make more for less...who isnt for it?
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
...the thing is to make an envirement and find a balance in which companys pay willingly enough taxes,yet still want to come / stay here and build their product(provide jobs),to much taxes=outsourcing,not enough taxes="pesky" CEO's filling their pockets,thats the trick and right now with this administration,i dont see any balance,its either way all for the "workers" or leave,and alot didnt stay
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 i said south korea. they have more regulation but their economy is more sustainable
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
ok my bad ,south korea then,still i think it apply' to them too,i dont think we should look at what others do and use them as example,i rather would look at our own history first and see what did work (like Coolidge and Harding) and what didnt work (Woodrow Wilson),might be bad examples,but representative in my opinion,simple put,its not about the classes or rich and poor(as some wants to make you believe),its about how to make a good living for as many as possible
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 "it's about how to make a good living for as many as possible." Thats a good utilitarian view, but unfortunately for you it is contradictory to what you think would achieve this objective. Utilitarians would not agree with you because the problem is that the USA regulations are not in correlation with the idea to make a good living for as many as possible. 2) If we do not use comparative examples throughout the world, that undermines education and the undertaking of seeking truth
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 thats how education grows lol by looking at the world around us. You are pulling the 'special pleading' card by saying we must only examine our ways first -_-. That has no substance to it, you cannot just look at the history of our own country, you must also look at the history of others. Your philosophy esp since the reagan years has crippled the ability of people to make a good living in this country. 1/4 of our children are in poverty; it's pathetic
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
you got me wrong,i did not say we should "ONLY" look at our history,i said we should look FIRST at ours,there is alot that we could rediscover and learn again,but you have a good point.."USA regulations are not in correlation with the idea to make a good living for as many as possible",thats true and here is why in my opinion,the job of the Gov't is to provide"general"guidelines for all,NOT to regulate as much as they can down to the detail and thats what they are doing....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
..your 2.point...undermining education??come on now,remember it is your life and YOU have to make the best out of it,if you dont get the education you like,seek it yourself in a library,they have tons of books and writen material that you can use and mostly for free as well,same as you buy your TV (example) that you like in the place you can get it,you dont settle for less dont you?the reason why ppl got "crippled in their ability" is because they stopped to strive for a better and of course....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
...the overwhelming down to the detail regulations of the gov't that thinks they know better/best whats good for the ppl,simply putt ,when you start to rely on someone else to run your life,you dont deserve better,same like Obama wants to put out 10.000 engineers each year,nice thought,but in the long run,who is going to produce the food they need,without any farmers?,you gotta look on all sides of the metal,not only the shiny one ;)
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 I've heard the "dependency" card on govt many times and it has no substance, esp since it is in reference to the extreme which is not the case. The problem is this country has been on the right for awhile and even though our economy doubled int he 80s, wages remain stagnant. What is govt doing by regulating down to the detail? They been letting businesses get away with alot.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 1) Remember I said before, that the US government is so lenient with businesses and wall street... you remember how easy wall street got off? 2) Even though you would rather look at our history first (which is fine) you must not only educate yourself on that. And I do use a variety of sources. 3) I am one that likes to counter the bad sides of the free market system (i.e. healthcare, education, etc.). In some cases it is good to have input from leading economists
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
you can call it "dependency card",its actualy a good name for it and it hits the nail on the head,no substance and extreme?,i dont really think so and i believe the 47million ppl on foodstamps are not extreme either,the extrem part on it is that it is so many ppl,i agree on point 1 of you theyis lenient and shouldnt be involved at all in the first place,point 2 do i need to inform myself sure all the time,i agree,point 3 may i remind you that we are suppose to be a Republic ....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
.....not a Democracy or democratic Republic,which in my believe means that ppl first and foremost should be selfreliant and support each other,without the elected gov't interventions,like healthcare/education,which the gov't seems to make a right,while it is not or try's to put their propaganda (left or right) into the education and yes i agree the free market doesnt only have beauty pretty sides,it also has disadvantages,but the important part is that it regulates itself.....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
....in my opinion,like when you have a shitty product ,you wont sell much of it or none at all,unlike the current administration that sells us crap all the time and we have to buy,due to their own regulations,see Germany,the gov't is the SERVANT of the people NOT vis versa
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 there is nothing wrong with public programs, in fact, nationalized healthcare in other western countries is seenon the right on promoting self-responsibility. the foodstamp example is not the greatest, although there are flaws in the welfare system, robust individualists have no credibility and still seek handouts in natural disasters. the third point you mentioned doesnt make sense. Last time I checked France is in its fifth republic. BTW, constitutions change
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
you got several good point,no nationalized healthcare is promoting selfresponsibility,instead this "safety net" ,just like Welfare becomes a Humack and people stop to providing for themselfs,handouts..best example is and was Kathrine,you see ppl in NewOrleans standing in the water and waiting for the gov't to take care oft them,instead of moving/walking out of there,how stupid is that?you right constitutions are changing,our is designed that way too,due to the amendment process....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
Comment removed
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
....and it did change over the years,example Amendment 18 section 1 (prohebition),was it good? did it help the nation and the people?nope,it didnt,yet it is still in there for us to remember what is not working,the flaw you mention is this "dependancy card" and a gov't that decides over the heads of the people,thats some reason why frances contitution is in such bad shape,they dont have the option of "updating" it,like we have
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 your fallacy: appeal to speculation. I know someone personally who deals with people on welfare; and most of the time in his experience he sees most of the welfare recipients find a job and go off welfare. You saying "Welfare becomes a Humack and people stop providing for themselves.." means nothing to me. What I said about self-responsibility about nationalized healthcare is correct. People pay for nationalized healthcare like any other healthcare program...
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 and a nationalized healthcare system promotes self-responsibility so a person who is ill/disabled/w/e, can get care right away without making themselves worse and rely on more tax money to get better when it is in its worse stages (preventative care is cheaper). Nationalized healthcare is not for profit. So someone who can get better right away, and therefore come back to work sooner, be more efficient at work, get better asap without infecting others,
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 , does not take as many sick days, does not take any compensation from a company in relations to certain ailments or disabilities, etc. I say that's pretty self-responsible. Btw, your New Orleans example is not a good one. Yeah ppl were stuck on roofs of houses..some prob couldnt swim or maybe some were hurt and couldnt swim. In a figurative sense, ppl wanted to be saved esp to keep the law and order in the area.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
lets assume for a second iam so totaly wrong and you are absolutely right,when it comes to the nationalized HC,as you say"People pay for nationalized healthcare like any other healthcare program",that means to me that everyone is mandated to have HC-Insurance,furthermore it means to me that people just dont care that much about their health status as that they are insured and dont have to worry about it anyways,since they can get treatment anytime they choose...
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
....no need to be selfresponsible,they been taken care of and what about the younger generation that barely gets sick,do they have to have insurance too? you know they could use that money to pay off student loans or others to pay off some mortages,Welfare..as examples from other country's show,a cut down on the time for welfare benefits,cleary indicates the people are way earlier "motivated" to get of off Welfare,knowing the benefits will end very soon,hence my comparison .....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
..of the safety net becoming a Humack,New Orleans...people down there had 3-4 days warning that a Kathrina is approaching,yet alot did stay regardless and those are the people you see on rooftops waiting for rescue and help,so even it is their own fault,we still helped them,to top it off,gov't official went around and did confisciate all weapons in that area to uphold the law,which raises the question,how is a citizen able to defend themself if someone breaks into their house and wants to loot?
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
...by the end of the day and looking at all angles and issues we did discuss,to me it is very obvious that the gov't is NOT the solution,it is the one that starts the problems,while trying to convince people that it is the best solution,however i do welcome your opinion and you got some valid good points,still it is not all sunshine,on my part same as on your part,i believe men can rule himself,seems to me you do not,but thats ok too,in the end,everyone has to live his live with what they got
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 robust individualism has no credibility and the free market assumes all can attain whatever they want by circumstance which is entirely false. The govt can help problems that doesnt mean I think they are always perfect for every solution. Govt cares about the welfare of the people, businesses dont, all they care about is ppl paying money for their product. The private sector brought us into this economic crisis.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 The CEO did not attain his job and success purely on his own. He wouldnt have been so successful without his workers, the government giving him carte blanche for free enterprise, his/her own advisors, his/her education taught to him by professors, and of course the customers that keep the business going. Yes, one can say in general he worked hard to ge thimself there, but the robust individualist cringes everytime its pointed out that it is naive to think he could do it without...
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 the world around him. "I believe men can rule himself." Individuals do not care about the economy, they care about themselves. The problem is u just have this untangible mistrust of government and speculate broadly on issues of welfare and pull typical cards that Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin pull. The world of Adam Smith is gone, John Keynes has taken over and the world has moved on.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
i agree on two things with you,1.i do not trust the gov't,that is correct and no i will not tell you why,2. yes the CEO wouldnt had come that far,if he wouldnt had tried or got off his ass with the goal in sight to become a CEO one day,its also obvious to me now that you do not understand the concept of "men rule themselfs",there is a huge difference between that concept and being selfcentered ("Individuals do not care about the economy, they care about themselves") as you see it..
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
..the way i see it,that is something you could research and find out for yourself,also as you say "robust individualism has no credibility and the free market assumes all can attain whatever they want by circumstance which is entirely false",i dont think so,cuz every person is a individual,the CEO,the President,a Cop so on and they are robus,otherwise they couldnt do the job and they are also credible or we had a lousy president e.g.,yes all can atain whatever they want.....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
...they just have to get up their ass and go for it,like Herman Cain for example (assuming he didnt lie),he went from a "poor" son of a famer on the fields to a CEO or Obama went from a "poor" guy to be President,so i guess your gov't made that happen,as you seem to claim,btw i dont know Sarah Palin nor Michelle Bachmann,never meet them,have seen them on TV yes,but thats all,so i can not comment nor tell what their personal position on things are,besides its their position not mine
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 imagine ppl coming together under a veil of ignorance, not knowing any self-status of who they would be in a certain society. We also do not know our advantages or disadvantages. Since noone would have a superior bargaining position, the principles agreed upon for the social contract would be just. You must ask yourself what principles self-interested persons would choose if found in this position. as moral agents we are defined not by our ends but by our CAPACITY for choice
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 It is not our aims that primarily reveal our nature, it is rather the framework of rights we would choose if we could abstract from our aims. NOONE under this hypothetical contract would choose libertarian philosophy. 2) your vision of freedom and autonomy is flawed. If we understand ourselves as free and independent selves, unbound by moral ties we haventchosen, we cant makesense of moral and political obligations we recognize: solidarity, loyalty,religion,etc that shape identity
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
why you think there has to be someone with "superior bargain"? and why needs there to be a "social contract"?what makes you think morals have no standing with free people?its the opposite,it is essential,that also have respect for each other and the needs thereof.it is not a framework that defines us,its the people we surround us with,peolpe with honesty and honor,striving to be the best they can be for themself and others...
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 I never said that there is someone with "superior bargain." I use social contract because one of the social contract theorists' (Locke) was used int he fabrication of this country. I never said morals have no standing with free people. And your last sentence just proved my point why the hypothetical contract works...no one in that group would want an unregulated completely free market system because noone would know what position in society each would hold.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
btw you should have added in your prior statement that you quote in part Professor Sandel,since it is not coming out of your own,but guess thats a detail thats easy to miss,right?
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 yes its from sandel, but I paraphrased and yes, your idea of what "freedom" is, is naive and superficial; it's self-defeating and make moral individualism invalid. LOL you probably were copying and pasting my phrases into google
Radetzky19 7 months ago
....there is no need for any political obligation,unlike you,i imagine people come together under a veil of courage,standing up for each other and what is right,people do recognize liberty and freedom
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 "I imagine people come together under a veil of courage. standing up for each other and what is right, people do recognize liberty and freedom." And these ppl would think the same thing under the veil of ignorance whether they would be public service workers or not. I see your double standard. Your outright distrust of government is understandable but intrinsically does not make sense since we are able to vote ppl out of office, unlike corrupt businessmen.
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
and you are the one that is naive in believing whatever this professor (or alike) is telling you without question,since you are "only" 27,you are way to young to notice the pycholigical and socialist elements in his speech you have on your channel,see i didnt google it,guess iam not that stupid and uninformed as you may thought iam,so as for now,since none of my arguments hold any value to you,cuz they are all flawed in your opinion,i will not waste my time with you no more....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
....instead i strongly suggest to you to educate yourself,first on the history of this country (read the original documents,not what someone tells you how it was),find out the meaning of things behind its creation (yes you have to use your own brain) and in about 20 - 30 years after you got some life experience and had actualy a chance to compare your (right now) thoughts with reality,we talk again,until then ..keep on learning
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 LOL lamest counter I heard. You pulled the whole age card which is irrelevant and that basically means you cannot argue anymore, because quite a few times you said I had great points...that should tell you something...maybe an old dog can learn new tricks
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Radetzky19
to you everything is irrelevant,except your point of view which is the only one you will accept,that shows your ignorance,in the entire conversation,all you did is talking about some theories of some people you never known nor meet and have no references to reality,futhermore your pitty attempt to make fun of me and play the "age card" shows a lag of respect and your lag of (once again) life experience,so let me make you feel like you are a winner.....
Hoschi0913 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 I played the age card to show through logical analogy how pointless it was to pull that card on me. No sir, I do not think any opinion other than mine is irrelevent. I exposed alot of holes in your thinking. You believe a few (the wealthy few) I responsible for providing jobs. Sorry dude, that even goes against the so called free market utopia you strive for... the rest of the populace relies onthe few 10% to provide jobs? What is this? the third world?
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 Oh and tax breaks for the top wealthy do crap. Again, if corporate taxes have decreased since the 50s, the economy doubled since 1988, and the top 10% got a tax cut..with your logic everything should be a lot better but its not because its all BS. The CEOs just take that extra money, give themselves an added bonus and still strip departments within the corporation leaving ppl jobless. This has nothing to do with partisanship... its called I'm not an idiot
Radetzky19 7 months ago
@Hoschi0913 3) you need to realize youa re the one who is extreme, I am asking for middle ground which goes to show how screwed up this country is in politics. I refuse to be a slave to corporate oligarchs, who can rule authoritatively and therefore can do whatever they want, no matter what ppl think. I like capitalism but we also must counter the bad side effects. That is all I have been saying and you to disagree with that is pretty peculiar since it is a typical moderate view
Radetzky19 7 months ago
Obama promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. He pledged to end Bushs warrantless wire tapping and now defends it. He decried Rendition and now continues it. He promised that he would end Bushs practice of indefinite detention and instead, he expanded it to permanent detention without trial. He has doubled the debt in only 6-months and is expanding the wars!
Yet Obamabots STILL have faith in their god? FOOLS!!
Change??? Obamanation!!!! (count on it)
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
Nice vid guys!!! I'll definitely check out the site!
sballard03 2 years ago
Agreed.
He should just walk away like Sarah Palin did.
JWPhotographyArt 2 years ago
this is dead on. nice job on this video man!
Why is it that Obama can't understand that everybody hates him?
Subscribzalot123 2 years ago
its really no secret that socialism doesnt work. its just like communism...its no good.
manoftheyearindeed 2 years ago
wow this guy is really smart. i will check out the website. I agree with the capitalism movement. our country wont work with socialism.
everythingwasgone 2 years ago
@everythingwasgone actually we already have tons of socialist policies in the US like national fire care
Radetzky19 1 year ago
This is the TRUTH! Nice job explaining it in a simple way to understand!
hancockenator 2 years ago 2