It's stupid to dismiss the loophole effect, or in your case; to mention it in that other video, as you say you did. So you mentioned it. So what? Did you do so only to make a blanket statement that they had zero effect? I'm not going to watch that other video because it's over 30 minutes, but based on what you said here, it seems that you just glossed over it as if it's not crucial.
So you admit that you didn't bother watching the video, but still shove this baseless & insulting speculation in my inbox?
To refute this with an appeal to the existing loopholes in that period, you would have start by actually providing evidence that those loopholes suddenly vanished once Reagan slashed the top rate. Adjust all pre-80's tax evasion, to the top rate still declining in 1982, & count the additional revenue loses.
Why "Communism" failed was because it was a top-down bureaucratic system of political economy:
1. A political economy (including all other types of political economies like Capitalism) CANNOT work because it functions on the basis of abstraction like laws, money and "finance" and not the accounting of real resources, relevant education and technology.
2. A top-down bureaucratic system concentrates power to those in political office (lawyers) and not the technologists, engineers and scientists.
If forced redistribution of property is by definition slavery, then obviously turning chattel bondsmen loose in the US&A by Federal power was the taking of freedom and creating slavery. Slavery then = Freedom in its full Orwellian sense. Brought to you by the free market.
The ultimate "trickle-down" economics is Keynesianism where gov't "stimulates" the economy by flying over businesses with helicopters full of taxed, printed, borrowed & redistributed cash.
The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow & debase to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups, Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Watch: “Money As Debt” & “Statism's Assembly Line” here on YouTube
Gov't FORCED Redistribution (individual or corporate), the EVIL child of Hubris & Envy is Pandora's Box, when opened it makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful and CRONIES of the politicians all in the name of "helping" some by enslaving others.
Enslaving some for he benefits or others is EVIL even when the mobocracy does it. You can't blame "trickle-anywhere" when gov't forces the flow.
Way to still not address any argument from the video.
"Evil removes free will" Free will is an illusion. Babies don't "free will" themselves into composing sentences. Just like everything else, it's an acquired skill resulting from nothing but cause & effect.
The French Revolution was all about the mob exercising force on parasitic nobles. By your non-logic, the exploitative nobles should've kept all their inherited wealth while 99% of the population doing actual work should've remained poor.
@AntiBullshitMan said: "Free will is an illusion. Babies don't "free will"" Are YOU a baby?
You are correct that "Free will is an illusion." but ONLY is that true as long as Social-Fascists and those who promote Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism like yourself try to use MOBocracy to promote Statism aka Socialism/Fascism.
You don't understand forms of gov't. Watch: The American Form of Government" on YouTube
You don't understand liberty. Watch: "The Philosophy of Libety" on YouTube
It's always true. You cannot pick & choose when to discount determinism so to cater to your political ideology.
"those who promote Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism like yourself"
You're clueless. Point to a video/comment of mine where I promote Anarcho-Communism. I'm begging you.
As for collectivism, even minarchists endorse a degree of it by allowing essential services like police & judiciary systems to be state run, failing to apply consistency to their market faith.
So unless you're an all-out anarcho-capitalist/social darwinist, then you also endorse a level of collectivism. Your standards of when particularly that level goes to far, are entirely arbitrary.
"The Philosophy of Libety"
I've seen every propaganda video you can point me to, so don't bother.
Instead, you should try educating yourself for a change: user/FairEconomics
Watch those videos. If you're still unable to let go of your ideology afterwards, I won't convince you in mere comment boxes.
Fair: Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. In accordance with rules or standards; legitimate.
Would you like me to define "moron" for you next?
If you cannot grasp how it's unfair to have a race where we place 2% of the competitors 4 feet away from the finish line, then you truly are hopeless, & you demonstrate just how desperate you are through your overuse of caps & the word "SLAVE SLAVE SLAVE". You trivialize & spit in the face of slavery's true meaning.
Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage" when they are allowed to Redistribute and Regulate to favor campaign backers and "friends". FREE Competition REMOVES the "unfair advantage" by forcing everyone to COMPETE.
Gov't is MONOPOLY which helps other MONOPOLIES form to gain money and power for themselves and their crony-politicians.
Gov't REGULATION& REDISTRIBUTION (crony-CORPORATISM) places their FAVORITE "competitors" "4 feet away from the finish line". FOOL!
So you basically just said that the spawn of royalty is placed at the same starting line as the spawn of a meth-addicted single mother in the Compton. That's what your "Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage"" drivel means. You're utterly hopeless.
The rest of it is just more generic goal-post switching. Where in this vid did I promote monopolies? I'm for non-profit alternatives, which aren't monopolies. You don't pay attention, you just reply for the primitive sake of getting the last word.
You're such a brainwashed little puppet. Would you allow all drivers' spawn to inherit a driver's license? Is it slavery to FORCE a driver to nullify his driver's license once he is unfit to drive? Are you that owned by your ideology & tunnel vision self-interest that you're unable to grasp how retarded it is when applied to anything other than $? Quit avoiding the points I raised by reiterating the same tired bullshit. Watch what I linked you to or fuck off
Would you replace the RIGHT of TRAVEL with a LICENSE? The RIGHT to Marry with a "License"? The Right to breed with a "license"? YES, because YOU think OTHERS should make those decisions FOR you. CHILD!
Do your think bureaucrats should decide YOUR quality of life? YES!
How much of YOUR labor you keep? YES!
Who is allowed to take your money? YES! Who must work for a living and who can just suck off the system? YES!
"Would you replace the RIGHT of TRAVEL with a LICENSE? The RIGHT to Marry with a "License"? The Right to breed with a "license"? YES, because YOU think OTHERS should make those decisions FOR you."
Why are you running away from the original driver's license analogy & obfuscating the issue by throwing in a ton of other random analogies? Because you can't respond to the original one?
Debate me in real time on skype. Username: antibullshitman
Surely you'll show up, given your passion & caps use.
"So you basically just said that the spawn of royalty is placed at the same starting line as the spawn of a meth-addicted single mother in the Compton. That's what your "Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage"" drivel means."
Why are you running away from the original "Gov't IS Monopoly which produces OTHER monopolies via "Trickle-Down" (bailout) redistribute & regulate policies" analogy & obfuscating the issue by throwing in a ton of other random analogies?
You get a lot of flack for doing these videos when you should be getting praise. I have to say I really appreciate the content you're putting out there.
It is call rationalization: (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening. The key to understanding this word when applied to the topic at hand is the phase "true motivation is concealed". They would not have to rationalize the failures if the polices delivered what was rationalized. Nor would they perpetuate these policies if they were not getting what they really wanted from them.
I believe that giving money to the rich to trickle down to poor is tantamount to feeding the fat bastards and when they shit it can be used to create fertilizer there by fighting the hunger of the world. On the other hand I don't believe in taxing extra on the rich because you are getting taxed more anyway if you make more. Since the taxation is based on percentage and not a fixed amount, basic math. Where is the responsibility of government in running their affairs lean and effective!
@TonyBroncos "Since the taxation is based on percentage and not a fixed amount, basic math"
This basic math doesn't take into account the loopholes allowing them to get away with paying 15% instead of the required 35%. Suggesting a flat tax on top of this, is madness. The middle/lower class will be drained even more through tax hikes which will be inevitable should progressive taxation be scrapped in this current climate.
@AntiBullshitMan Now you are on the right track. It is not that the Government should tax more to the rich but simplify the tax code and remove the loop holes. You can keep on increasing the tax as much as you want but if the loop holes exists then there is no point. In fact you end up taxing more to the law abiding rich and the crooked will still enjoy the loopholes. All the major corporations open up two companies in Ireland and funnel the money to Cayman Island Via Netherlands.
@AntiBullshitMan Also I am not suggesting a flat tax, you can still have the slab rates but rectify the issues in collecting the taxes from rich. You cannot put the burden of IRS loopholes on the riches. Rich are human too and if there are loop holes exists they will use it as any human will. Targeting one class because they are rich is also racism, since majority agrees with you does not mean you are on right path and you can target the rich.
"You cannot put the burden of IRS loopholes on the riches"
The entire point is that the loopholes are burdensome to everyone but the rich. Taxing them higher in the current climate is not an injustice. Taxing them higher after the loopholes are scrapped is also not an injustice, depending on how high a tax we're talking. I'd say anything going over 50% is excessive, but that's just an arbitrary line I drew in the sand & if the budget calls for its crossing, I wouldn't cry for them Argentina.
"Rich are human too and if there are loop holes exists they will use it"
Ok, so we agree that loopholes are a bad thing & that they're irresistible to any class. Got it.
"Targeting one class because they are rich is also racism"
You're thinking of classism, not racism. I'd agree with you that it's unjustified, but only when you have a top 2% which, for the most part, legitimately earns their wealth. In the States we have CEOs laying off 10K employees, then giving themselves big fat bonuses.
@AntiBullshitMan I agree you are good at semantics, so it is clasism, but in my opinion it is discrimination period, no matter how you slice it. Those CEO are just greedy bastards and totally agree that only thing they are doing is pocketing all the profits. So the Americans are even charged more, then they outsource and pay less to foreigners and treat them like slaves. Then they turn around and do not pay even the corporate taxes by opening fake companies in Ireland, Netherlands and Caymens
forget this trickle down effect non sense.. it could be that by letting the rich have more money will cause them to spend and employ more but its in their nature to do it in a moaner that benefits them that's how they capitalized in the fist place. How come we never look at the money that has already been made through out the centuries from the misery of others. Why is it so horrible to have a so called socialist world where more is equal as opposed to what goes on and there is still inequality
That is silly, if you want to analyze the efficiency or non efficiency, you must take into account external factors, whether if the system has failed or not!
I'm glad you noticed that communism failed, but that will not invalidate the State Atheist system? you know? all humanity's evil events come from religion so let's kill religion ... LoL
On God! that is a Strawman, nobody ever argued that, so you found your own mistake, nice God is not under a rock! Good Job!
The whole theory of "trickle down" has always left me with a bizarre fascination that people believe this BS. When, at any point in history, have the rich been "free" with their money? Even with 90% taxes, the rich were still incredibly rich and the last time I checked, there wasn't many "rich" setting up spots in the "tent towns" around here. Plutocracy at its best.
If the policies aren't what is repeatedly failing, but the result of outside factors, then I think we conclude that those policies, while not flawed in theory, are incompatible with reality and/or the economy. If it repeatedly fails to produce positive outcomes, then it either doesn't work or it is incompatible. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it trickle-downers. Good Video
trickle-down did what it was intend to. It made the rich richer. It was just snake-oil sales rhetoric that did not hold water. The disparity of income between the blue collar and executive level employees is grown tremendously since the implementation of trickle-down. The standard of living for working class has dropped, the net income per household(adjusted for inflation) for working class has dropped. Those in power sold a system that helps them and only them.
Trickle Down is nonsense please stop makeing videos about it. The US should have raised everyones taxes, a 6% tax on spending would be awesome, cut as much as possible in the medium turn, cut military spending and invest in the state department, fix healthcare so you dont waste cash on nonsense, invest in education and inovation, help ppl to reeducate again. The next 5 years would be painfull but it would pay of in the long turn.
@Uhmu45 ''Trickle Down is nonsense please stop makeing videos about it''
I know it's nonsense but making videos which point out why it's nonsense is not a useless endeavor, since we're living in a time when the majority of people who turn out to vote in the States end up staking their votes primarily on their conviction of trickle down being effective and the work of an economic wizard.
When you asked me this, you did so by replying to a comment of mine which already answers the question.
No, it's not fair. We must reward productivity more, & merely offer the minimals to those incapable of meeting certain productivity standards. When it comes to the disabled, we must guarantee (beyond private charity) them an ongoing safety net. When it comes to the lazy/unmotivated, we have to keep them on their toes just enough to ensure that they don't end up complaint.
In general: Home ownsership in the US is like the Tzar "gving land" to the peasants after the emancipation from serfdom, to make them self-sufficient owners. They had to pay for that land, on 30-year-terms, and more than a few fell in arrears long before then. One of the major reasons for the peasant revolt of the early 1900s. Would that USians had as much backbone as downtrodden Russian peasants of a century ago.
The first part of this video was really effective. If a policy can't compete with externalities, then it has to be judged a failure because there will always be externalities. Whether we are talking about the socialist planned economy or trickle-down economics, the experiment has been done. It doesn't matter whether the problem was in the theory or the execution. They failed in practice and there's no reason to expect different in the future. I wish YT would go back to time limits.
Larry King never made his opinions known, his job was to just nod along to any tripe the network threw at him. Any replacement would be faced with the same restrictions, and I think he's already been replaced with Anderson Cooper anyway.
The only decent on-air counterpart to Beck that I can think of was Olbermann, and we see how that turned out.
To those that say communism "did not work," I offer these statistics: in 1917 Russia was a society of 70% + , largely illiterate peasants. By 1991 - the year of the "collapse" - it had one of the highest ratios of education in the general population and a standard of living incomparably better by *Russian* standards. Nor would it would have "had all this anyway" under capitalism, as the development of capitalism in such "backward" regions elsewhere has never born this out in practice.
I didn't say there were no accomplishments or that it's all black & white, I'm just saying it won't work long-term unless it rids itself of its lofty ambitions to eliminate any sign of class. Such a goal will simply not blend well with the human condition. At times, our rejections of the model are just rooted in greed. Other times, it's a matter of seeking a fair reward in accordance to the time/effort one puts in. There will always be several degrees of time/effort, depending on the individual.
@AntiBullshitMan In "really existing socialism" - ie, the Soviet model - class was of course not eliminated. The party was the nucleus of a buraucratic-management class, derived in great measure from the working class, thus exhibiting a democratic upward mobility not found in western societies, but a "ruling class" in fact if not in theory. From this came the 3rd generation desire to shed the socialist trappings and become a "really existing bourgeoisie."
"the Soviet model - class was of course not eliminated"
I'm going to shift gears a bit and pose an alternative hypothetical outcome in which class actually does get eliminated, since that would also have led to unsustainability, albeit for entirely different reasons. Under a classless system, the pesky incentive factor would actually be a valid one to bring up, unlike now where people foolishly assume that welfare or taxing inheritance a bit higher results in a nation of unmotivated slackers.
@AntiBullshitMan Under a truly classless system, those claiming special privileges must base them on their contributions, to justify the higher reward based on the proven social advantage of their skill, talent, or whatever. There would still be no room for demands on others based on ownership, debt, or inheritance.
This actually prompted me to look up several definitions of classlessness, finding that some definitions, to my surprise, focus solely on eliminating birthright & do specifically include the possibility of moving up due to skill/work. Other definitions include only a blunt "Not divided into societal or economic groups; Without class or classes" indicating ongoing equality thus lack of possibility to move up based on anything. Stick to the former & it's swell.
@AntiBSMan There's also the question of exploitation. Does having special skills, abilities, expertise, etc., give the right to take advantage of others and society in general? A doctor to profit off sickness, a prime example. This comes down to a value judgment. I say no, that a doctor's skill and expertise must be bordered by social good, not just his patients' desperation and "the market." Otherwise you have health care just like the US. Drs. should make no more than a college prof.
I'm not defending scam artists at big pharma. Let's focus on non-communist nations where there's no calculated effort to get a population needlessly hooked on prescriptions. Only legit illnesses would be treated. Would you also classify this as taking advantage? Yes, it sucks that people get sick, but so does having to spend 10 years in med school in order to learn how to help those very sick people. At which point exactly do you turn it to ''taking advantage''?
@AntiBullshitMan oo-oo! That's so easy it hurts! I mean, delicious shooting pains all the way to my 2 typing fingers! When a patient has to mortgage his house, go through his life savings, file bankruptcy, or deny himself food just to pay medical bills, then that physician and the whole medical system he represents is doing his patient harm and the Hippocratic Oath becomes a hypocrite's curse. Ripoffs big & small constitute the essence of the US medical system, a class war on the patient.
If so then why resort to a red herring instead of answering my question in proper context? You mentioned a patient mortgaging his house, which predominantly happens in the States. I already explained that I'm not apologizing for those healthcare systems as they will always be subject to endless piles of scam I never argued for in the first place when I initially made mention of my qualms regarding potential non-stop income equality under Communism. (1/2)
My simple point here is that you can't scream exploitation by citing examples of any doctor treating the ill, much in the same way that you can't call yell exploitation by citing an elevator mechanic who fixes someone's broken elevator. Yes it sucks that the elevator got broken in the first place, but this doesn't eradicate the fact that the skill required to repairing elevators is difficult to acquire & requires fair compensation; compensation which shouldn't be branded as exploitative.
@AntiBullshitMan Elevator repairmen, electricians, linguists, sex surrogates - all have their places in life, but using their skill to extort profit is wrong, & they know it too, which is why they take such pains to justify said extortion. The medical profession is my particular bete noir, & I'd like to see the system nationalized w/ doctors turned into salaried state employees. Take profit out of pain & suffering. Care would suffer instead? Already does, when you can't afford to get sick.
@AntiBullshitMan A doctor treating the ill as such is not the point, nor "fair compensation" for doing so. The devil - as usual - lays in the definition of "fair." A physician deals with life and death, and deserves more reward for doing so than a lawyer. But taking advantage of a patient's desperation (which is what I see constantly) is something else again, and it's a medical model becoming all the more common worldwide.
Trickle-down is just an over-rationaliized, "nice" way of advocating the crumbs of the cake falling from the rich man's table benefiting the man who sweeps the floor. Not only is it an inherently degrading concept, but there's nothing in the contract's "theory" preventing the rich from keeping track of their crumbs, so that as few as possible are lost over the side.
@obnoxiousvf Actually he's a Canadian for all useful purposes, and I hear nothing else in his English speech pattern. But neither "identity" should detract from someone's right to think and speak for one's self.
Rich people didn't get that way by letting money trickle through their fingers. Giving money to selfish people isn't going to make them less selfish it only increases their ability to take even more. It becomes a feedback loop of greed.
@insightnew Just in case I wasn't clear. I totally agree with what AntiBullshitMan is saying here. And furthermore if the the public doesn't wake up to this our children will become little more than slaves.
there are too many problems to list that i have with your video. like most fiscal liberals, you seem to rest on the idea that profit motives of big businesses don't do anything to improve the standard of living for individuals, and that we need gov't regulations to protect us. this is just ridiculous. might i ask, what government agency dictated that the cost of consumer electronics must come down? (cont.)
@cristoballs in 1970, a simple calculator, which did nothing more than addition, subtraction, multiplication and division would have cost you about $400. adjusting for inflation, that would be over $2000 today. but today, for less than $300 you can buy a laptop computer, with a built in wireless internet card, that stores hundreds of movies and thousands songs. if your theories about trickle down economics were correct. we should be paying 10s of thousands of dollars for these laptops.(cont.)
@cristoballs but we don't. how come? why aren't the greedy individuals who run consumer electronics businesses jacking up their prices. after all, they are just interested in making bigger profits, aren't they? you complain about jobs lost because of outsourcing, but what about jobs lost due to new technology. we have machines that can do the job of a hundred men, at a fraction of the cost. should we be outlawing these machines as well?
The cost of production of those "greedy" individuals is low because of technology. If it costs $500 to make a laptop, the producer will sell at the lowest possible price while still gaining a profit. They obviously wont sell at $501, but the point is that in a purely competitive market the producer doesnt dictate prices, the market does. If your selling laptops at $600, and some braniac figures out a way to make them with more ease, resulting in a price of $400, your probably--
Im sure it does. If I was a politician Id pretend to be furious in an effort to make it seem like I care about the middle and lower classes. If I was a businessman taking part in this Id be enjoying my new platoon of strippers.
There is always a loophole in economics. There is always a way to cheat every system. All we can do is play our role to the best of our ability.
@dudesonman4200 What role is that, and who defines it? To say that "we all do" means that some have "defined themselves" as "winners" or "losers," yet in practice no one does this - certainly not the latter.
Obviously a loser never realizes he is a loser simply because he is a loser. Conservatives think liberals are wrong, and the opposite is also true. Everyone believes that what they are doing is the right thing. This is why we have rational debates about how things are and how they should be. The problem is that there is an astoundingly positive correlation between people who are stupid and cannot carry on a rational discussion, people who in fact have no idea what rationality even --
-- is, and people who are incorrect in what they are arguing for. In most cases I would actually argue that it isnt just mere correlation but in fact causation. In debates such as religion for example, a rational discussion is reviled, and is never even given its chance to refute. Luckily we now live in the 21st century.
The point is that everyone believes that they are right, and all they can do anyone can do is simply act on their beliefs as they see fit. But Im sure you also --
-- see a serious flaw in that if someone takes into account for example a muslim extremist or some right-wing lunatic with a fat wallet, a fat head, and a show on fox. To allow them their civil rights to express themselves would lead to disinformation, propaganda, and in some cases violence. Like I said, stupid people dont know theyre stupid, and they believe that they are right while the person who is actually right is wrong. But here is the inevitable question. Who decides who is --
-- right and wrong? In most arguments the person who is right(in an arrogant, yet undoubtedly correct fashion) know that they are right, and it is theyre job to convince the other of their arguments' invalidity. But as we extablished, the other can sometimes be rather unswayable. In cases such as religious extremism, or some sort of vast global catastrophe in which lives or even the world as we know it are at stake, civil rights be damned, the correct need to shut the oppostion up. --
-- The problem with this is not only that people wouldnt damn civil rights, as we absolutely shouldnt except for in extremely extremely rare cases, but also that the other side believes just as strongly in their beliefs.
Im gonna sop this now because its getting way too long. I answered the core of your question several comments ago but I went on a tirade because your question posed another interesting philosophical question, which I now feel like I shouldnt've doven into.
-- out of business. And thats the market. Now of course there are monopolies and oligopolies that run the majority of their respective markets. Sometimes the government steps in and installs price ceilings below equilibrium. Sometimes they tell them to split their company off into bits like they did to cellphone company (I forget the name) in an effort to prevent abuse of power and promote "economic competition". Maybe they should, maybe they shouldnt. There are exceptions to --
@dudesonman4200 there is no reason ever why the government should step in and install price controls. i agree with you to a degree that the cost of production is in part attributed to better technology and thus better efficiencies in the market. however, you overlook the fact that we wouldn't have these technological advances were it not for market competition.
Id agree with you on most cases, but there is always an exception. Lets say a hurricane demolishes the gulf coast, and millions of people need cheap food, and cheap resources in general. The market might dictate that prices are at a certain level, but the victims of the hurricane cant afford that level, so unless the gov steps in and sets a ceiling, millions of people might die. I understand that Im playing what if, but your wrong when you say "there is no reason ever".
@dudesonman4200 people still have a sense of decency in this world. there is no need for the gov't to step in and dictate prices. we have many charitable organization which often do more than enough in these types of situations without any government mandate, and do a much better job of distributing the resources they have to those in need. i think people too often assume that in the absence of government intervention, everyone would just let disaster victims die.
I hope I havent given you the impression that I support gov intervention. I dont take it as far as for example the teabaggers, but generally speaking, I believe in the free market system.
Having been a classical liberal (libertarian) for as long as I can remember, recently my mind is telling me more and more that active redistribution of wealth by the state is justified. I don't have a full political justification for it yet, though. I find it hard to reconcile it with my fundamentally liberal (not in the American sense of liberal) philosophy, and I have no idea how exactly the state should do it.
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers.)
I love how they marked this comment as spam, but then turn around and assure everyone that they don't support the current symptoms of "Corporatism". Very transparent.
Nice analysis. I think everything you said makes sense to me.
I'm a liberal with some socialist leanings, but I feel no need to defend communism. The examples of communism that have so far existed aren't very socialist. The real world differences between communism and fascism often seem superficial. I suspect a sustainable economic system would lean closer to socialism (labor unions, worker representation on corporate boards, etc) than to our present corporatism.
Trickle Down is also shit to some millionaires like my family. we paid higher Income & Business Tax when earning under $4 million. we paid Tax & refused to use immoral Loopholes. some Loopholes automatic. optional ones we refused. we are manufacturers, producers. i'm a Travel agent but from producer family.
we were lied to by Reaganomics too. incentives to use Loopholes when +$4 millionaires & billionaires evade Taxes, forced higher Tax on us; pressure to raise our product prices on Consumers.
Bravo! but you should do a 3rd vid, debunking more delusions (not conspiracies but economic lies)
yes you do persuade some of them (not a waste of time!) dont let them discourage you. see how they hate when people debunk this shit? stay on it! like an investigative reporter.
like Fletch (Chevy Chase) lol seriously. use Fletchian sarcasm, laugh at them, as you destroy, with grace ; D
Fletch (Finale scene) "I charged my entire vacation to the very rich Mr. Underhill's AMEX card. Want the number?"
Austrians certainly don't believe that trickle down economics is the only way to create a prosperous economy.But increasing the tax rate on the rich isn't a sure way to create a propserous economy. The increase in the tax rate on the rich in the 1930's did not stopped the great depression and England did not experience a similar economic boom that the united states in the 1950's . Also, Ireland became exponentially wealthy in the last 20 years without arelatively high tax rate on the rich
@AntiBullshitMan What do you think of Socialism? I looked into Communism a while ago and I considered myself one until I figured out that it could only work in an ideal society, I am now a Socialist.
Can't do your question much justice in 500 characters, but as evidenced by 30s-70s America, the means of production don't need to be owned by the workers/state in order for a middle class to thrive. As long as proper regulation in is effect, there's no reason that people capable of saving money shouldn't be allowed to use their capital for the purposes of employment (minimum wage). Here we have public & private companies competing when it comes to a select few markets.
Communism is a flawed system? What about Cuba? They have better health care and educational outcomes than the US for example. Also communism has no fixed rules the same as capitalism..
@hornetobiker all systems are flawed, nothing is perfect, but systems that work better than others are a blend with rational people always having a hand in improving the system for the middle, which is what has proven to work. Not working to improve the system for the top at the sake of the rest.
P.S I believe Antibsman is from Eastern Europe, so he likely has first hand knowledge of communism.
but be careful using people from Eastern Europe to illustrate your points.
i'm from Eastern Europe too.
i regularly see Libertarian Conservatives, Friedmanites, Ayn Rand Social-Darwinists, Mises Fascists, Neo-Nazi "Freedom Party" pseudo-economic speakers, Alex Jones/Aaron Russo & Peter Schiff pseudo-Economists, Neo-Liberals and other Free Market apologists for Fascism, use Eastern Europeans to illustrate their distorted anti-Social Equality view.
Simply put, it's flawed because a receptionist shouldn't rake in anything even remotely approaching what a brain surgeon earns. Admitting this doesn't mean that I'm fond of classism or preposterous CEO salaries, it just means that I'm realistic enough to recognize that we need to reward workers as accordingly as possible to the time/effort they dedicate to acquiring their respective professions. Class is a necessary evil.
@hornetobiker just because it's flawed doesn't mean it's all bad. He was talking about the economics part of communism, that just doesn't work. The education and health care were the functioning part. Though they were lagging behind technologically, due to the iron curtain and the lack of resources.
@TheAzov Are you disputing that the Soviet regime failed economically? If I had a time machine to go before my birth and witness it I probably won't because I'd be executed for spying. But I'd let you go and find out.
I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but we all know the results. Which were almost as bad as you've been told on the other side of the curtain.
@coladict I really don't need to do that. But if one can't dissect "the mechanics," then he can't judge the results. If we watch a man fall on the ground, we need to ask if it was caused by his poor balance, or uneven terrain, or had he been drinking, or was he pushed from behind.
@hornetobiker what about waiting 7 years to get a car and 2 years for a washing machine? What about your binman getting paid more than your doctor and dentist? What about having no choice about where you live and what kind of place you live in?
@eagleeye1975 The way you know trickle down economics really doesn't work? The greater the gap between the highest earners and the lowest, the worse off the country is. Look at Zimbabwe, they are really taking care of their top earners.
@eagleeye1975 Look who's talking about dishonesty. You're a coward who can't even remember the baseless assertions he's made in his own comment section, you clearly have no idea what a false dichotomy is, or why it's fallacious, and you resort to ad hominems including toothless death wishes when logically bested. Ya want an insult? How about the irony of an obese slob making vids in a constant mess discussing a "culture of laziness". Keep smoking and filling your gut; coronary in near future.
It's stupid to dismiss the loophole effect, or in your case; to mention it in that other video, as you say you did. So you mentioned it. So what? Did you do so only to make a blanket statement that they had zero effect? I'm not going to watch that other video because it's over 30 minutes, but based on what you said here, it seems that you just glossed over it as if it's not crucial.
costagreek19 4 months ago
"blanket statement"
So you admit that you didn't bother watching the video, but still shove this baseless & insulting speculation in my inbox?
To refute this with an appeal to the existing loopholes in that period, you would have start by actually providing evidence that those loopholes suddenly vanished once Reagan slashed the top rate. Adjust all pre-80's tax evasion, to the top rate still declining in 1982, & count the additional revenue loses.
The argument from loophole is a non-sequitur.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
Why "Communism" failed was because it was a top-down bureaucratic system of political economy:
1. A political economy (including all other types of political economies like Capitalism) CANNOT work because it functions on the basis of abstraction like laws, money and "finance" and not the accounting of real resources, relevant education and technology.
2. A top-down bureaucratic system concentrates power to those in political office (lawyers) and not the technologists, engineers and scientists.
technatezin 6 months ago
If forced redistribution of property is by definition slavery, then obviously turning chattel bondsmen loose in the US&A by Federal power was the taking of freedom and creating slavery. Slavery then = Freedom in its full Orwellian sense. Brought to you by the free market.
TheAzov 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ultimate "trickle-down" economics is Keynesianism where gov't "stimulates" the economy by flying over businesses with helicopters full of taxed, printed, borrowed & redistributed cash.
The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow & debase to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups, Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Watch: “Money As Debt” & “Statism's Assembly Line” here on YouTube
LEARN!
yakyakyak69 10 months ago
@yakyakyak69
Way to casually not address a single argument made in the video. If you have no appreciation for context, yakyak your way to a brick wall elsewhere.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan Evil removes free will.
Gov't FORCED Redistribution (individual or corporate), the EVIL child of Hubris & Envy is Pandora's Box, when opened it makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful and CRONIES of the politicians all in the name of "helping" some by enslaving others.
Enslaving some for he benefits or others is EVIL even when the mobocracy does it. You can't blame "trickle-anywhere" when gov't forces the flow.
Learn Economics!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
Way to still not address any argument from the video.
"Evil removes free will" Free will is an illusion. Babies don't "free will" themselves into composing sentences. Just like everything else, it's an acquired skill resulting from nothing but cause & effect.
The French Revolution was all about the mob exercising force on parasitic nobles. By your non-logic, the exploitative nobles should've kept all their inherited wealth while 99% of the population doing actual work should've remained poor.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan said: "Free will is an illusion. Babies don't "free will"" Are YOU a baby?
You are correct that "Free will is an illusion." but ONLY is that true as long as Social-Fascists and those who promote Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism like yourself try to use MOBocracy to promote Statism aka Socialism/Fascism.
You don't understand forms of gov't. Watch: The American Form of Government" on YouTube
You don't understand liberty. Watch: "The Philosophy of Libety" on YouTube
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
"but ONLY is that true"
It's always true. You cannot pick & choose when to discount determinism so to cater to your political ideology.
"those who promote Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism like yourself"
You're clueless. Point to a video/comment of mine where I promote Anarcho-Communism. I'm begging you.
As for collectivism, even minarchists endorse a degree of it by allowing essential services like police & judiciary systems to be state run, failing to apply consistency to their market faith.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
So unless you're an all-out anarcho-capitalist/social darwinist, then you also endorse a level of collectivism. Your standards of when particularly that level goes to far, are entirely arbitrary.
"The Philosophy of Libety"
I've seen every propaganda video you can point me to, so don't bother.
Instead, you should try educating yourself for a change: user/FairEconomics
Watch those videos. If you're still unable to let go of your ideology afterwards, I won't convince you in mere comment boxes.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan aka Bullshitman
Define "fair"
When is it "fair" to use force to bend others to your will when those "others" are harming no one?
When is it "fair" to use force to take what others have earned only to use that stolen money to buy power (via votes) from corrupt takers in society?
When is it "fair" to enslave some for the benefits of others?
Forced "redistribution" is Slavery! YOUR "Propaganda" is promoting slavery. YOU are a slave, a slave owner and a Slaver!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
"define fair"
Fair: Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. In accordance with rules or standards; legitimate.
Would you like me to define "moron" for you next?
If you cannot grasp how it's unfair to have a race where we place 2% of the competitors 4 feet away from the finish line, then you truly are hopeless, & you demonstrate just how desperate you are through your overuse of caps & the word "SLAVE SLAVE SLAVE". You trivialize & spit in the face of slavery's true meaning.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage" when they are allowed to Redistribute and Regulate to favor campaign backers and "friends". FREE Competition REMOVES the "unfair advantage" by forcing everyone to COMPETE.
Gov't is MONOPOLY which helps other MONOPOLIES form to gain money and power for themselves and their crony-politicians.
Gov't REGULATION& REDISTRIBUTION (crony-CORPORATISM) places their FAVORITE "competitors" "4 feet away from the finish line". FOOL!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
So you basically just said that the spawn of royalty is placed at the same starting line as the spawn of a meth-addicted single mother in the Compton. That's what your "Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage"" drivel means. You're utterly hopeless.
The rest of it is just more generic goal-post switching. Where in this vid did I promote monopolies? I'm for non-profit alternatives, which aren't monopolies. You don't pay attention, you just reply for the primitive sake of getting the last word.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
"Forced "redistribution" is Slavery"
You're such a brainwashed little puppet. Would you allow all drivers' spawn to inherit a driver's license? Is it slavery to FORCE a driver to nullify his driver's license once he is unfit to drive? Are you that owned by your ideology & tunnel vision self-interest that you're unable to grasp how retarded it is when applied to anything other than $? Quit avoiding the points I raised by reiterating the same tired bullshit. Watch what I linked you to or fuck off
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan You're such a brainwashed little puppet.
Would you replace the RIGHT of TRAVEL with a LICENSE? The RIGHT to Marry with a "License"? The Right to breed with a "license"? YES, because YOU think OTHERS should make those decisions FOR you. CHILD!
Do your think bureaucrats should decide YOUR quality of life? YES!
How much of YOUR labor you keep? YES!
Who is allowed to take your money? YES! Who must work for a living and who can just suck off the system? YES!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
"Would you replace the RIGHT of TRAVEL with a LICENSE? The RIGHT to Marry with a "License"? The Right to breed with a "license"? YES, because YOU think OTHERS should make those decisions FOR you."
Why are you running away from the original driver's license analogy & obfuscating the issue by throwing in a ton of other random analogies? Because you can't respond to the original one?
Debate me in real time on skype. Username: antibullshitman
Surely you'll show up, given your passion & caps use.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntiBullshitMan said:
"So you basically just said that the spawn of royalty is placed at the same starting line as the spawn of a meth-addicted single mother in the Compton. That's what your "Gov't can ONLY GIVE the "unfair advantage"" drivel means."
Why are you running away from the original "Gov't IS Monopoly which produces OTHER monopolies via "Trickle-Down" (bailout) redistribute & regulate policies" analogy & obfuscating the issue by throwing in a ton of other random analogies?
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF TAX CUTS!
turnofffox 1 year ago
You get a lot of flack for doing these videos when you should be getting praise. I have to say I really appreciate the content you're putting out there.
bighugejake 1 year ago
It is call rationalization: (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening. The key to understanding this word when applied to the topic at hand is the phase "true motivation is concealed". They would not have to rationalize the failures if the polices delivered what was rationalized. Nor would they perpetuate these policies if they were not getting what they really wanted from them.
masluxx 1 year ago
I can't believe there are still people out there who refuse to accept that this policy always fails.
IRVGuy 1 year ago
I believe that giving money to the rich to trickle down to poor is tantamount to feeding the fat bastards and when they shit it can be used to create fertilizer there by fighting the hunger of the world. On the other hand I don't believe in taxing extra on the rich because you are getting taxed more anyway if you make more. Since the taxation is based on percentage and not a fixed amount, basic math. Where is the responsibility of government in running their affairs lean and effective!
TonyBroncos 1 year ago 2
@TonyBroncos "Since the taxation is based on percentage and not a fixed amount, basic math"
This basic math doesn't take into account the loopholes allowing them to get away with paying 15% instead of the required 35%. Suggesting a flat tax on top of this, is madness. The middle/lower class will be drained even more through tax hikes which will be inevitable should progressive taxation be scrapped in this current climate.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 7
@AntiBullshitMan Now you are on the right track. It is not that the Government should tax more to the rich but simplify the tax code and remove the loop holes. You can keep on increasing the tax as much as you want but if the loop holes exists then there is no point. In fact you end up taxing more to the law abiding rich and the crooked will still enjoy the loopholes. All the major corporations open up two companies in Ireland and funnel the money to Cayman Island Via Netherlands.
TonyBroncos 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan Also I am not suggesting a flat tax, you can still have the slab rates but rectify the issues in collecting the taxes from rich. You cannot put the burden of IRS loopholes on the riches. Rich are human too and if there are loop holes exists they will use it as any human will. Targeting one class because they are rich is also racism, since majority agrees with you does not mean you are on right path and you can target the rich.
TonyBroncos 1 year ago
"You cannot put the burden of IRS loopholes on the riches"
The entire point is that the loopholes are burdensome to everyone but the rich. Taxing them higher in the current climate is not an injustice. Taxing them higher after the loopholes are scrapped is also not an injustice, depending on how high a tax we're talking. I'd say anything going over 50% is excessive, but that's just an arbitrary line I drew in the sand & if the budget calls for its crossing, I wouldn't cry for them Argentina.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 7
"Rich are human too and if there are loop holes exists they will use it"
Ok, so we agree that loopholes are a bad thing & that they're irresistible to any class. Got it.
"Targeting one class because they are rich is also racism"
You're thinking of classism, not racism. I'd agree with you that it's unjustified, but only when you have a top 2% which, for the most part, legitimately earns their wealth. In the States we have CEOs laying off 10K employees, then giving themselves big fat bonuses.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 11
@AntiBullshitMan I agree you are good at semantics, so it is clasism, but in my opinion it is discrimination period, no matter how you slice it. Those CEO are just greedy bastards and totally agree that only thing they are doing is pocketing all the profits. So the Americans are even charged more, then they outsource and pay less to foreigners and treat them like slaves. Then they turn around and do not pay even the corporate taxes by opening fake companies in Ireland, Netherlands and Caymens
TonyBroncos 1 year ago
forget this trickle down effect non sense.. it could be that by letting the rich have more money will cause them to spend and employ more but its in their nature to do it in a moaner that benefits them that's how they capitalized in the fist place. How come we never look at the money that has already been made through out the centuries from the misery of others. Why is it so horrible to have a so called socialist world where more is equal as opposed to what goes on and there is still inequality
LEADINLADI08 1 year ago
That is silly, if you want to analyze the efficiency or non efficiency, you must take into account external factors, whether if the system has failed or not!
I'm glad you noticed that communism failed, but that will not invalidate the State Atheist system? you know? all humanity's evil events come from religion so let's kill religion ... LoL
On God! that is a Strawman, nobody ever argued that, so you found your own mistake, nice God is not under a rock! Good Job!
VyckRo 1 year ago
The whole theory of "trickle down" has always left me with a bizarre fascination that people believe this BS. When, at any point in history, have the rich been "free" with their money? Even with 90% taxes, the rich were still incredibly rich and the last time I checked, there wasn't many "rich" setting up spots in the "tent towns" around here. Plutocracy at its best.
Kendrahf 1 year ago
I'm glad you make these videos on this subject. I very much enjoy listening to your videos while I'm painting. :)
Bobbiethejean 1 year ago
If the policies aren't what is repeatedly failing, but the result of outside factors, then I think we conclude that those policies, while not flawed in theory, are incompatible with reality and/or the economy. If it repeatedly fails to produce positive outcomes, then it either doesn't work or it is incompatible. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it trickle-downers. Good Video
Thayer79 1 year ago
trickle-down did what it was intend to. It made the rich richer. It was just snake-oil sales rhetoric that did not hold water. The disparity of income between the blue collar and executive level employees is grown tremendously since the implementation of trickle-down. The standard of living for working class has dropped, the net income per household(adjusted for inflation) for working class has dropped. Those in power sold a system that helps them and only them.
masluxx 1 year ago
Capitalism is failing now.
gasgas270 1 year ago
@gasgas270
Prepare yourself for a mantra of "Capitalism =/= Corporatism" silly talk coming from its apologists.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 7
Trickle Down is nonsense please stop makeing videos about it. The US should have raised everyones taxes, a 6% tax on spending would be awesome, cut as much as possible in the medium turn, cut military spending and invest in the state department, fix healthcare so you dont waste cash on nonsense, invest in education and inovation, help ppl to reeducate again. The next 5 years would be painfull but it would pay of in the long turn.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45 ''Trickle Down is nonsense please stop makeing videos about it''
I know it's nonsense but making videos which point out why it's nonsense is not a useless endeavor, since we're living in a time when the majority of people who turn out to vote in the States end up staking their votes primarily on their conviction of trickle down being effective and the work of an economic wizard.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 12
@Steelsixtysix
When you asked me this, you did so by replying to a comment of mine which already answers the question.
No, it's not fair. We must reward productivity more, & merely offer the minimals to those incapable of meeting certain productivity standards. When it comes to the disabled, we must guarantee (beyond private charity) them an ongoing safety net. When it comes to the lazy/unmotivated, we have to keep them on their toes just enough to ensure that they don't end up complaint.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan ''''that they don't end up complaint.''''
Correction: *Complacent.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
It's like being in the Matrix...people fighting to defend a system which ultimately does not benefit them or society...just the very few at the top.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
It's like being in the Matrix...people fighting to defend a system which ultimately does not benefit them or society...just the very few at the top.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
In general: Home ownsership in the US is like the Tzar "gving land" to the peasants after the emancipation from serfdom, to make them self-sufficient owners. They had to pay for that land, on 30-year-terms, and more than a few fell in arrears long before then. One of the major reasons for the peasant revolt of the early 1900s. Would that USians had as much backbone as downtrodden Russian peasants of a century ago.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Awesome allaround pownage :)
Your1maginaryFriend 1 year ago
I bet you checked under your shoes after you made this video =P
wigglezwow 1 year ago
The first part of this video was really effective. If a policy can't compete with externalities, then it has to be judged a failure because there will always be externalities. Whether we are talking about the socialist planned economy or trickle-down economics, the experiment has been done. It doesn't matter whether the problem was in the theory or the execution. They failed in practice and there's no reason to expect different in the future. I wish YT would go back to time limits.
Ramiiam 1 year ago
I've never found a midget in my shoes, but I did find a dead scorpion once. In life you sometimes have to just take what you can get.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Antibullshitman should have his own opinion hour on cnn now that larry king is gone. Finally someone to challenge glenn beck
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@dudesonman4200
Larry King never made his opinions known, his job was to just nod along to any tripe the network threw at him. Any replacement would be faced with the same restrictions, and I think he's already been replaced with Anderson Cooper anyway.
The only decent on-air counterpart to Beck that I can think of was Olbermann, and we see how that turned out.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
To those that say communism "did not work," I offer these statistics: in 1917 Russia was a society of 70% + , largely illiterate peasants. By 1991 - the year of the "collapse" - it had one of the highest ratios of education in the general population and a standard of living incomparably better by *Russian* standards. Nor would it would have "had all this anyway" under capitalism, as the development of capitalism in such "backward" regions elsewhere has never born this out in practice.
TheAzov 1 year ago
I didn't say there were no accomplishments or that it's all black & white, I'm just saying it won't work long-term unless it rids itself of its lofty ambitions to eliminate any sign of class. Such a goal will simply not blend well with the human condition. At times, our rejections of the model are just rooted in greed. Other times, it's a matter of seeking a fair reward in accordance to the time/effort one puts in. There will always be several degrees of time/effort, depending on the individual.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan In "really existing socialism" - ie, the Soviet model - class was of course not eliminated. The party was the nucleus of a buraucratic-management class, derived in great measure from the working class, thus exhibiting a democratic upward mobility not found in western societies, but a "ruling class" in fact if not in theory. From this came the 3rd generation desire to shed the socialist trappings and become a "really existing bourgeoisie."
TheAzov 1 year ago
"the Soviet model - class was of course not eliminated"
I'm going to shift gears a bit and pose an alternative hypothetical outcome in which class actually does get eliminated, since that would also have led to unsustainability, albeit for entirely different reasons. Under a classless system, the pesky incentive factor would actually be a valid one to bring up, unlike now where people foolishly assume that welfare or taxing inheritance a bit higher results in a nation of unmotivated slackers.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan Under a truly classless system, those claiming special privileges must base them on their contributions, to justify the higher reward based on the proven social advantage of their skill, talent, or whatever. There would still be no room for demands on others based on ownership, debt, or inheritance.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov "a truly classless system"
This actually prompted me to look up several definitions of classlessness, finding that some definitions, to my surprise, focus solely on eliminating birthright & do specifically include the possibility of moving up due to skill/work. Other definitions include only a blunt "Not divided into societal or economic groups; Without class or classes" indicating ongoing equality thus lack of possibility to move up based on anything. Stick to the former & it's swell.
AntiBSMan 1 year ago
@AntiBSMan There's also the question of exploitation. Does having special skills, abilities, expertise, etc., give the right to take advantage of others and society in general? A doctor to profit off sickness, a prime example. This comes down to a value judgment. I say no, that a doctor's skill and expertise must be bordered by social good, not just his patients' desperation and "the market." Otherwise you have health care just like the US. Drs. should make no more than a college prof.
TheAzov 1 year ago
"doctor to profit off sickness"
I'm not defending scam artists at big pharma. Let's focus on non-communist nations where there's no calculated effort to get a population needlessly hooked on prescriptions. Only legit illnesses would be treated. Would you also classify this as taking advantage? Yes, it sucks that people get sick, but so does having to spend 10 years in med school in order to learn how to help those very sick people. At which point exactly do you turn it to ''taking advantage''?
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan oo-oo! That's so easy it hurts! I mean, delicious shooting pains all the way to my 2 typing fingers! When a patient has to mortgage his house, go through his life savings, file bankruptcy, or deny himself food just to pay medical bills, then that physician and the whole medical system he represents is doing his patient harm and the Hippocratic Oath becomes a hypocrite's curse. Ripoffs big & small constitute the essence of the US medical system, a class war on the patient.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov "That's so easy it hurts"
If so then why resort to a red herring instead of answering my question in proper context? You mentioned a patient mortgaging his house, which predominantly happens in the States. I already explained that I'm not apologizing for those healthcare systems as they will always be subject to endless piles of scam I never argued for in the first place when I initially made mention of my qualms regarding potential non-stop income equality under Communism. (1/2)
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
My simple point here is that you can't scream exploitation by citing examples of any doctor treating the ill, much in the same way that you can't call yell exploitation by citing an elevator mechanic who fixes someone's broken elevator. Yes it sucks that the elevator got broken in the first place, but this doesn't eradicate the fact that the skill required to repairing elevators is difficult to acquire & requires fair compensation; compensation which shouldn't be branded as exploitative.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan ""skill required to repairing elevators is difficult to acquire & requires""
And yes I just realized how abysmally I phrased that... I think I'll call it a day.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan Elevator repairmen, electricians, linguists, sex surrogates - all have their places in life, but using their skill to extort profit is wrong, & they know it too, which is why they take such pains to justify said extortion. The medical profession is my particular bete noir, & I'd like to see the system nationalized w/ doctors turned into salaried state employees. Take profit out of pain & suffering. Care would suffer instead? Already does, when you can't afford to get sick.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan A doctor treating the ill as such is not the point, nor "fair compensation" for doing so. The devil - as usual - lays in the definition of "fair." A physician deals with life and death, and deserves more reward for doing so than a lawyer. But taking advantage of a patient's desperation (which is what I see constantly) is something else again, and it's a medical model becoming all the more common worldwide.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Trickle-down is just an over-rationaliized, "nice" way of advocating the crumbs of the cake falling from the rich man's table benefiting the man who sweeps the floor. Not only is it an inherently degrading concept, but there's nothing in the contract's "theory" preventing the rich from keeping track of their crumbs, so that as few as possible are lost over the side.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Are you Russian? You have a hint of accent.
RaymondDundas 1 year ago
@RaymondDundas
He's a Serb.
obnoxiousvf 1 year ago
@obnoxiousvf Actually he's a Canadian for all useful purposes, and I hear nothing else in his English speech pattern. But neither "identity" should detract from someone's right to think and speak for one's self.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Rich people didn't get that way by letting money trickle through their fingers. Giving money to selfish people isn't going to make them less selfish it only increases their ability to take even more. It becomes a feedback loop of greed.
insightnew 1 year ago
@insightnew Just in case I wasn't clear. I totally agree with what AntiBullshitMan is saying here. And furthermore if the the public doesn't wake up to this our children will become little more than slaves.
insightnew 1 year ago
"Holy shit this was a long video" lol
redlion7277 1 year ago
there are too many problems to list that i have with your video. like most fiscal liberals, you seem to rest on the idea that profit motives of big businesses don't do anything to improve the standard of living for individuals, and that we need gov't regulations to protect us. this is just ridiculous. might i ask, what government agency dictated that the cost of consumer electronics must come down? (cont.)
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs in 1970, a simple calculator, which did nothing more than addition, subtraction, multiplication and division would have cost you about $400. adjusting for inflation, that would be over $2000 today. but today, for less than $300 you can buy a laptop computer, with a built in wireless internet card, that stores hundreds of movies and thousands songs. if your theories about trickle down economics were correct. we should be paying 10s of thousands of dollars for these laptops.(cont.)
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs but we don't. how come? why aren't the greedy individuals who run consumer electronics businesses jacking up their prices. after all, they are just interested in making bigger profits, aren't they? you complain about jobs lost because of outsourcing, but what about jobs lost due to new technology. we have machines that can do the job of a hundred men, at a fraction of the cost. should we be outlawing these machines as well?
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs
The cost of production of those "greedy" individuals is low because of technology. If it costs $500 to make a laptop, the producer will sell at the lowest possible price while still gaining a profit. They obviously wont sell at $501, but the point is that in a purely competitive market the producer doesnt dictate prices, the market does. If your selling laptops at $600, and some braniac figures out a way to make them with more ease, resulting in a price of $400, your probably--
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@dudesonman4200 The producers can collude to keep a product off the market until the price is driven up. Happens all the time.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov
Im sure it does. If I was a politician Id pretend to be furious in an effort to make it seem like I care about the middle and lower classes. If I was a businessman taking part in this Id be enjoying my new platoon of strippers.
There is always a loophole in economics. There is always a way to cheat every system. All we can do is play our role to the best of our ability.
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@dudesonman4200 What role is that, and who defines it? To say that "we all do" means that some have "defined themselves" as "winners" or "losers," yet in practice no one does this - certainly not the latter.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov
Obviously a loser never realizes he is a loser simply because he is a loser. Conservatives think liberals are wrong, and the opposite is also true. Everyone believes that what they are doing is the right thing. This is why we have rational debates about how things are and how they should be. The problem is that there is an astoundingly positive correlation between people who are stupid and cannot carry on a rational discussion, people who in fact have no idea what rationality even --
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@TheAzov
-- is, and people who are incorrect in what they are arguing for. In most cases I would actually argue that it isnt just mere correlation but in fact causation. In debates such as religion for example, a rational discussion is reviled, and is never even given its chance to refute. Luckily we now live in the 21st century.
The point is that everyone believes that they are right, and all they can do anyone can do is simply act on their beliefs as they see fit. But Im sure you also --
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@TheAzov
-- see a serious flaw in that if someone takes into account for example a muslim extremist or some right-wing lunatic with a fat wallet, a fat head, and a show on fox. To allow them their civil rights to express themselves would lead to disinformation, propaganda, and in some cases violence. Like I said, stupid people dont know theyre stupid, and they believe that they are right while the person who is actually right is wrong. But here is the inevitable question. Who decides who is --
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@TheAzov
-- right and wrong? In most arguments the person who is right(in an arrogant, yet undoubtedly correct fashion) know that they are right, and it is theyre job to convince the other of their arguments' invalidity. But as we extablished, the other can sometimes be rather unswayable. In cases such as religious extremism, or some sort of vast global catastrophe in which lives or even the world as we know it are at stake, civil rights be damned, the correct need to shut the oppostion up. --
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@TheAzov
-- The problem with this is not only that people wouldnt damn civil rights, as we absolutely shouldnt except for in extremely extremely rare cases, but also that the other side believes just as strongly in their beliefs.
Im gonna sop this now because its getting way too long. I answered the core of your question several comments ago but I went on a tirade because your question posed another interesting philosophical question, which I now feel like I shouldnt've doven into.
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@cristoballs
-- out of business. And thats the market. Now of course there are monopolies and oligopolies that run the majority of their respective markets. Sometimes the government steps in and installs price ceilings below equilibrium. Sometimes they tell them to split their company off into bits like they did to cellphone company (I forget the name) in an effort to prevent abuse of power and promote "economic competition". Maybe they should, maybe they shouldnt. There are exceptions to --
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@cristoballs
-- every rule in this neverending economic debate. I hope I answered your questions in this long tirade of mine.
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@dudesonman4200 there is no reason ever why the government should step in and install price controls. i agree with you to a degree that the cost of production is in part attributed to better technology and thus better efficiencies in the market. however, you overlook the fact that we wouldn't have these technological advances were it not for market competition.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs
Id agree with you on most cases, but there is always an exception. Lets say a hurricane demolishes the gulf coast, and millions of people need cheap food, and cheap resources in general. The market might dictate that prices are at a certain level, but the victims of the hurricane cant afford that level, so unless the gov steps in and sets a ceiling, millions of people might die. I understand that Im playing what if, but your wrong when you say "there is no reason ever".
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
@dudesonman4200 people still have a sense of decency in this world. there is no need for the gov't to step in and dictate prices. we have many charitable organization which often do more than enough in these types of situations without any government mandate, and do a much better job of distributing the resources they have to those in need. i think people too often assume that in the absence of government intervention, everyone would just let disaster victims die.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs
I hope I havent given you the impression that I support gov intervention. I dont take it as far as for example the teabaggers, but generally speaking, I believe in the free market system.
dudesonman4200 1 year ago
Having been a classical liberal (libertarian) for as long as I can remember, recently my mind is telling me more and more that active redistribution of wealth by the state is justified. I don't have a full political justification for it yet, though. I find it hard to reconcile it with my fundamentally liberal (not in the American sense of liberal) philosophy, and I have no idea how exactly the state should do it.
omgatheism 1 year ago
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers.)
BloodRedHalo656 1 year ago
@BloodRedHalo656
I love how they marked this comment as spam, but then turn around and assure everyone that they don't support the current symptoms of "Corporatism". Very transparent.
Anyway, unspammed.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
Nice analysis. I think everything you said makes sense to me.
I'm a liberal with some socialist leanings, but I feel no need to defend communism. The examples of communism that have so far existed aren't very socialist. The real world differences between communism and fascism often seem superficial. I suspect a sustainable economic system would lean closer to socialism (labor unions, worker representation on corporate boards, etc) than to our present corporatism.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Trickle Down is also shit to some millionaires like my family. we paid higher Income & Business Tax when earning under $4 million. we paid Tax & refused to use immoral Loopholes. some Loopholes automatic. optional ones we refused. we are manufacturers, producers. i'm a Travel agent but from producer family.
we were lied to by Reaganomics too. incentives to use Loopholes when +$4 millionaires & billionaires evade Taxes, forced higher Tax on us; pressure to raise our product prices on Consumers.
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago 4
Bravo! but you should do a 3rd vid, debunking more delusions (not conspiracies but economic lies)
yes you do persuade some of them (not a waste of time!) dont let them discourage you. see how they hate when people debunk this shit? stay on it! like an investigative reporter.
like Fletch (Chevy Chase) lol seriously. use Fletchian sarcasm, laugh at them, as you destroy, with grace ; D
Fletch (Finale scene) "I charged my entire vacation to the very rich Mr. Underhill's AMEX card. Want the number?"
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago 2
Yep, it's all just a bunch of ad hoc hypothesizing, coupled with a burden shift.
100PercentGreen 1 year ago
Austrians certainly don't believe that trickle down economics is the only way to create a prosperous economy.But increasing the tax rate on the rich isn't a sure way to create a propserous economy. The increase in the tax rate on the rich in the 1930's did not stopped the great depression and England did not experience a similar economic boom that the united states in the 1950's . Also, Ireland became exponentially wealthy in the last 20 years without arelatively high tax rate on the rich
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@AntiBullshitMan What do you think of Socialism? I looked into Communism a while ago and I considered myself one until I figured out that it could only work in an ideal society, I am now a Socialist.
FredrichNietzsche25 1 year ago
@FredrichNietzsche25
Can't do your question much justice in 500 characters, but as evidenced by 30s-70s America, the means of production don't need to be owned by the workers/state in order for a middle class to thrive. As long as proper regulation in is effect, there's no reason that people capable of saving money shouldn't be allowed to use their capital for the purposes of employment (minimum wage). Here we have public & private companies competing when it comes to a select few markets.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
Communism is a flawed system? What about Cuba? They have better health care and educational outcomes than the US for example. Also communism has no fixed rules the same as capitalism..
hornetobiker 1 year ago
@hornetobiker all systems are flawed, nothing is perfect, but systems that work better than others are a blend with rational people always having a hand in improving the system for the middle, which is what has proven to work. Not working to improve the system for the top at the sake of the rest.
P.S I believe Antibsman is from Eastern Europe, so he likely has first hand knowledge of communism.
jarrodm2002 1 year ago
@jarrodm2002
i like your defense of AntiBull ; j
but be careful using people from Eastern Europe to illustrate your points.
i'm from Eastern Europe too.
i regularly see Libertarian Conservatives, Friedmanites, Ayn Rand Social-Darwinists, Mises Fascists, Neo-Nazi "Freedom Party" pseudo-economic speakers, Alex Jones/Aaron Russo & Peter Schiff pseudo-Economists, Neo-Liberals and other Free Market apologists for Fascism, use Eastern Europeans to illustrate their distorted anti-Social Equality view.
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago 4
@hornetobiker
Simply put, it's flawed because a receptionist shouldn't rake in anything even remotely approaching what a brain surgeon earns. Admitting this doesn't mean that I'm fond of classism or preposterous CEO salaries, it just means that I'm realistic enough to recognize that we need to reward workers as accordingly as possible to the time/effort they dedicate to acquiring their respective professions. Class is a necessary evil.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago 15
@hornetobiker just because it's flawed doesn't mean it's all bad. He was talking about the economics part of communism, that just doesn't work. The education and health care were the functioning part. Though they were lagging behind technologically, due to the iron curtain and the lack of resources.
coladict 1 year ago
@coladict Interesting. How did the economic part of communism "not work?"
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov Well did it? The Soviet regime collapsed mostly because of it's economic failure.
coladict 1 year ago
@coladict How, exactly? You seem quite sure - illuminate me. :)
TheAzov 1 year ago
@TheAzov Are you disputing that the Soviet regime failed economically? If I had a time machine to go before my birth and witness it I probably won't because I'd be executed for spying. But I'd let you go and find out.
I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but we all know the results. Which were almost as bad as you've been told on the other side of the curtain.
coladict 1 year ago
@coladict I really don't need to do that. But if one can't dissect "the mechanics," then he can't judge the results. If we watch a man fall on the ground, we need to ask if it was caused by his poor balance, or uneven terrain, or had he been drinking, or was he pushed from behind.
TheAzov 1 year ago
@hornetobiker what about waiting 7 years to get a car and 2 years for a washing machine? What about your binman getting paid more than your doctor and dentist? What about having no choice about where you live and what kind of place you live in?
Pulchism 1 year ago
You are being a dishonest ass. You are strawmanning the trickle down argument, and ignoring inconvenient arguments.
I'm done with you.
eagleeye1975 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975 what argument could you possibly have to explain the fact that exactly $0.00 has trickled down from those top-bracket tax cuts?
coladict 1 year ago
@coladict
He doesn't need an argument, he has ideology and insults at his disposal.
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975
What's the strawman? Right now your comment contains no information.
Provoker7 1 year ago 13
@eagleeye1975 The way you know trickle down economics really doesn't work? The greater the gap between the highest earners and the lowest, the worse off the country is. Look at Zimbabwe, they are really taking care of their top earners.
crateguy 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975 Look who's talking about dishonesty. You're a coward who can't even remember the baseless assertions he's made in his own comment section, you clearly have no idea what a false dichotomy is, or why it's fallacious, and you resort to ad hominems including toothless death wishes when logically bested. Ya want an insult? How about the irony of an obese slob making vids in a constant mess discussing a "culture of laziness". Keep smoking and filling your gut; coronary in near future.
Wyglyph 1 year ago
First -.-
lilcheevous 1 year ago