Hey the youngs turks are putting out economic videos now

[NGardner]

And they are totally incorrect in their analysis 

 

[McBeer]

It didn't seem very non-partisan. Maybe if he says non-partisan one more time it will become true. 

[J. D. Stembal]

The deficit is largely unimportant at this point. The national debt is a tsunami wave looming over our heads, and that's just the first wave.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (18 Trillion and counting!)

[TheSchoolofAthens]

In order to fit his narrative of the economy getting better, and that democrats are actually good economic leaders [as if democrats and republicans are really all that different], he is only looking at the deficit and not looking at the debt nor unfunded liabilities, it's such an intellectually dishonest move. Why is it intellectually dishonest? Because he didn't even mention the constantly growing debt even though at the beginning of the video he mentions that the deficit and the debt are different! He totally avoids the frightening, growing debt and then ends the video by pretty much saying "the democratic party is good for the economy." 

To put it bluntly, he is an absolute asshole for doing that - as would be anyone else who puts narratives over reason and truth. TYT disgusts me! 

[mlsv2f]

About the debt, I have heard the WW2 comparison as well

 

1. To pay down WW2 debt, they jacked up the tax rates from 1935 (Tax revenue was 5% of GDP, it become 20% and has remained there since)

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

 

1a: Don't let them fool you with the "THE OLD HIGHEST BRACKET USED TO BE 90%", that was when you were making the present day equivalent of $50MM per year. Rates for 90% of Americans were 4 and 6% on federal income taxes then. 

 

2.We went off the gold standard and have had a money printing party ever since.

 

3.There was a massive working force compared to the elderly due to the population demographics at the time (baby boomers), Now, and it seems to be like this is all western countries, the population is top heavy and there are drastically more older people to support for every worker.

 

Conclusion: They had to increase tax revenues by 4 fold AND go on a massive printing party to pay down that debt, during the peak years of the baby boom to pay down that debt.  Those options and circumstances are really not there for this situation.

[Crallask]

Also don't forget that there were numerous loopholes the rich used to avoid paying those 90% tax rates. 

 

In addition to that, because the methods of securing and using wealth were so restrictive the US economy slowed to a comparative crawl to where it should have been. This allowed for places like Japan to rebound and catch up to the US because no one could use their money in its most efficient ways. 

 

I get so tired of these fucking people that blabber on about how to taking money from others is the solution when they themselves make more money than most people. I don't see them dropping 80% of their wealth into charity. 

 

Not only that, but there seems to be this assumption that all money held by anyone is the same. It's not. In the vast majority of cases - if you are rich it's because you've earned it. You know who you really want to be holding a lot of money? People that are good at investing and making solid returns. Because if there's one thing that fucks over everyone, it's the mass misallocation of wealth. 

 

Sure, a lot of rich folks can be assholes in one form or another, but I'd rather take a quirky yet skilled surgeon over a terrible one. (I can't really blame the rich for being grouches either - they tend to work their asses off to get vilified and have people talk about what they should do with their money after stealing it from them.)

[fractional slacker]

Cenk, the Jon Stewart wannabe, wouldn't know a "fact" from propaganda if it punched him in his ever expanding gut. The fact is govt. education is so lousy he and his comrades have to resort to 3rd grade cartoons to explain the difference between the terms national debt and national deficit.

The idea this cartoon is non-partisan, or any relation to reality and truth,  has about as much credibility as a squared circle.

[Naer]

Also don't forget that there were numerous loopholes the rich used to avoid paying those 90% tax rates. 

 

In addition to that, because the methods of securing and using wealth were so restrictive the US economy slowed to a comparative crawl to where it should have been. This allowed for places like Japan to rebound and catch up to the US because no one could use their money in its most efficient ways. 

 

I get so tired of these fucking people that blabber on about how to taking money from others is the solution when they themselves make more money than most people. I don't see them dropping 80% of their wealth into charity. 

 

Not only that, but there seems to be this assumption that all money held by anyone is the same. It's not. In the vast majority of cases - if you are rich it's because you've earned it. You know who you really want to be holding a lot of money? People that are good at investing and making solid returns. Because if there's one thing that fucks over everyone, it's the mass misallocation of wealth. 

 

Sure, a lot of rich folks can be assholes in one form or another, but I'd rather take a quirky yet skilled surgeon over a terrible one. (I can't really blame the rich for being grouches either - they tend to work their asses off to get vilified and have people talk about what they should do with their money after stealing it from them.)

40% is owned by the 1%. Are you saying the 1% works harder than the rest? Are you saying that someone born into wealth works harder than a taxi driver?

[Naer]

Cenk, the Jon Stewart wannabe, wouldn't know a "fact" from propaganda if it punched him in his ever expanding gut. The fact is govt. education is so lousy he and his comrades have to resort to 3rd grade cartoons to explain the difference between the terms national debt and national deficit.

The idea this cartoon is non-partisan, or any relation to reality and truth,  has about as much credibility as a squared circle.

Your private schools wont help

[Jer]

40% is owned by the 1%. Are you saying the 1% works harder than the rest? Are you saying that someone born into wealth works harder than a taxi driver?

Inequality is not inherently bad, but government exacerbates this inequality through things like professional licensing requirements and protected monopolies. In my area it's illegal to fix a toilet without permission from the government.

from vid "Some people say the debt is immoral, but people borrow for good things all the time!" STRAWMAN

 

It's not immoral to take out a loan, it's immoral to take out a loan on behalf of a non consenting 3rd party such as an unborn child.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

40% is owned by the 1%. Are you saying the 1% works harder than the rest? Are you saying that someone born into wealth works harder than a taxi driver?

What's your point?

[Crallask]

40% is owned by the 1%. Are you saying the 1% works harder than the rest? Are you saying that someone born into wealth works harder than a taxi driver?

I too do not understand the point you're trying to make. Are there some assholes among the rich? Certainly. There are exploitative abusive assholes that profit from the current power structure and hierarchies. 

 

But the point about "hard word" is moot. I don't give a shit how hard someone works, sorry. You can work yourself in back breaking labor cutting down trees. So what? You're still just cutting down trees. You can drive a taxi - it comes with its own challenges... you're still just driving people.

 

Managing large companies and groups requires skills exponentially greater than other forms of work which could be considered hard. 

 

So yes, thank you to all the construction workers, lumberers, and other such laborers. You do good stuff, but that doesn't mean you're not replaceable. Sorry, but a CEO, systems administrator, Senior scientists and engineers are far rarer. Whereas any able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45 can do the sort of things these others do with a very small amount of training in comparison. 

 

Not to mention that they might be replaced soon enough by automated labor. Self directed vehicles aren't too far on the horizon after all. (I'm more giddy about printing and regrowing organs though)

[Naer]

Inequality is not inherently bad, but government exacerbates this inequality through things like professional licensing requirements and protected monopolies. In my area it's illegal to fix a toilet without permission from the government.

from vid "Some people say the debt is immoral, but people borrow for good things all the time!" STRAWMAN

 

It's not immoral to take out a loan, it's immoral to take out a loan on behalf of a non consenting 3rd party such as an unborn child.

 

inequality=imbalance and is inherently unsustainable. How is fixing a toilet illegal especially if its your toilet?

[Naer]

I too do not understand the point you're trying to make. Are there some assholes among the rich? Certainly. There are exploitative abusive assholes that profit from the current power structure and hierarchies. 

 

But the point about "hard word" is moot. I don't give a shit how hard someone works, sorry. You can work yourself in back breaking labor cutting down trees. So what? You're still just cutting down trees. You can drive a taxi - it comes with its own challenges... you're still just driving people.

 

Managing large companies and groups requires skills exponentially greater than other forms of work which could be considered hard. 

 

So yes, thank you to all the construction workers, lumberers, and other such laborers. You do good stuff, but that doesn't mean you're not replaceable. Sorry, but a CEO, systems administrator, Senior scientists and engineers are far rarer. Whereas any able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45 can do the sort of things these others do with a very small amount of training in comparison. 

 

Not to mention that they might be replaced soon enough by automated labor. Self directed vehicles aren't too far on the horizon after all. (I'm more giddy about printing and regrowing organs though)

 

why do you feel entitled to greater pay for something you can learn for free online

[Naer]

What's your point?

I don't see how a scientist should get paid more or less than a busboy

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I don't see how a scientist should get paid more or less than a busboy

So what? 

[shirgall]

I don't see how a scientist should get paid more or less than a busboy

 

The expected return from a scientist is much greater than that of a busboy.

[Jer]

 

 

inequality=imbalance and is inherently unsustainable. How is fixing a toilet illegal especially if its your toilet?

Do you have evidence backing this statement? because I'd say imposed equality is probably unsustainable and definitely immoral.

You need a license to be a plumber.

[shirgall]

You need a license to be a plumber.

 

Only according to the government, in order to protect existing plumbers from competition and earn some politicians a little lobbying cash from the plumbers, inspectors, and gougers union. Even then if you want to "fix" your toilet to use more than 1.5L of water per flush even a licensed plumber isn't allowed to do it.

[Naer]

Do you have evidence backing this statement? because I'd say imposed equality is probably unsustainable and definitely immoral.

You need a license to be a plumber.

It lacks balance with nature as we are a part of nature not seperate.I never said anything about imposed equality. I'm using a general term. 

 

And I could fix my toilet if I wanted to. I do not need a license

[Naer]

The expected return from a scientist is much greater than that of a busboy.

 

You see, I don't subscribe to your religion of capitalism. I believe that technology has made life easier. Not because of capitalism

[shirgall]

You see, I don't subscribe to your religion of capitalism. I believe that technology has made life easier. Not because of capitalism

 

Why develop a technology if there's no expected return from it? Incentives working is not religion, they are attributes of human psychology.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It lacks balance with nature as we are a part of nature not seperate.I never said anything about imposed equality. I'm using a general term. 

 

And I could fix my toilet if I wanted to. I do not need a license

Which particular balance with nature? If cockroaches took over the world then that would be the balance of nature. What is the balance of nature you think is objectively correct?

You see, I don't subscribe to your religion of capitalism. I believe that technology has made life easier. Not because of capitalism

Seeing as you wish to insult people here and not actually refute the arguments for capitalism with anything other than bumper-sticker propaganda I will share with you a secret that will save a lot of time for you and everyone else who has to listen to your insipid, leftist drivel.

Here it is - If you don't want to be a capitalist then don't fucking be one. We're not forcing you and we don't need you. You go build a socialist society and we'll go be capitalists. We never need to bother each other again. You understand? 

[Crallask]

 

I too do not understand the point you're trying to make. Are there some assholes among the rich? Certainly. There are exploitative abusive assholes that profit from the current power structure and hierarchies. 

 

But the point about "hard word" is moot. I don't give a shit how hard someone works, sorry. You can work yourself in back breaking labor cutting down trees. So what? You're still just cutting down trees. You can drive a taxi - it comes with its own challenges... you're still just driving people.

 

Managing large companies and groups requires skills exponentially greater than other forms of work which could be considered hard. 

 

So yes, thank you to all the construction workers, lumberers, and other such laborers. You do good stuff, but that doesn't mean you're not replaceable. Sorry, but a CEO, systems administrator, Senior scientists and engineers are far rarer. Whereas any able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45 can do the sort of things these others do with a very small amount of training in comparison. 

 

Not to mention that they might be replaced soon enough by automated labor. Self directed vehicles aren't too far on the horizon after all. (I'm more giddy about printing and regrowing organs though)

 

why do you feel entitled to greater pay for something you can learn for free online

 

You cannot learn it for "free" because it has a time cost. 

 

Also - I didn't say anyone was entitled to anything. The point is that you're NOT entitled and therefore earn resources at a rate that is relative to your production. Sorry, but I cannot pay someone 30,000 a year if they're only making me 18,000. It's just not sustainable. 

[Alan C.]

I don't see how a scientist should get paid more or less than a busboy

 

In a free-market economy, people are rewarded according to the value they provide to others. [some] scientists contribute to the provision of goods and services which improve the lives of millions of people via labor-saving devices and technology. Doing so requires specialized knowledge and expertise which is not in abundant supply, and which may require years of work and deferred consumption.

 

Being a busboy doesn't require specialized knowledge and expertise, years of work, or deferred consumption. Learning to be a busboy can be accomplished within days and available candidates are abundant.

 

That's why [some] scientists should get paid more than busboys.

...I don't subscribe to your religion of capitalism. I believe that technology has made life easier. Not because of capitalism

 

Actually, you do ascribe to it as evidenced by the fact that you're using a computer.

 

Technological innovation is made possible by the capitalistic order of production.

 

Fidel Castro hated capitalism, except for his Rolex watches.

[Naer]

You cannot learn it for "free" because it has a time cost. 

 

Also - I didn't say anyone was entitled to anything. The point is that you're NOT entitled and therefore earn resources at a rate that is relative to your production. Sorry, but I cannot pay someone 30,000 a year if they're only making me 18,000. It's just not sustainable.

 

. With automation, input is minimized relative to the generated output. That's well and could but what I'm concerned with this idea of infinite growth on a finite planet. To ensure the integrity of the society equality must be realized. Let me ask you a question. Would you stop doing what you're doing if we all had equal pay?

[Naer]

In a free-market economy, people are rewarded according to the value they provide to others. [some] scientists contribute to the provision of goods and services which improve the lives of millions of people via labor-saving devices and technology. Doing so requires specialized knowledge and expertise which is not in abundant supply, and which may require years of work and deferred consumption.

 

Being a busboy doesn't require specialized knowledge and expertise, years of work, or deferred consumption. Learning to be a busboy can be accomplished within days and available candidates are abundant.

 

That's why [some] scientists should get paid more than busboys.

 

 

Actually, you do ascribe to it as evidenced by the fact that you're using a computer.

 

Technological innovation is made possible by the capitalistic order of production.

 

Fidel Castro hated capitalism, except for his Rolex watches.

Would you stop doing what you're doing if everyone had equal pay?

[Lingum]

Would you stop doing what you're doing if everyone had equal pay?

 

Yes.

 

That's well and could but what I'm concerned with this idea of infinite growth on a finite planet.

You're relying entirely on rhetoric. Infinite growth is a meaningless term, just like finite planet. Continuous is more accurate, but still just another way of saying growth. You use word play and symbolism to make it seem like you're presenting an obvious syllogism. It's just inaccurate language. Why are you concerned?

 

To ensure the integrity of the society equality must be realized.

Begging the question.

 

What does integrity of the society mean (in this context)?

What is your definition of equality?

How is equality realized?

[Naer]

Yes. You're relying entirely on rhetoric. Infinite growth is a meaningless term, just like finite planet. Continuous is more accurate, but still just another way of saying growth. You use word play and symbolism to make it seem like you're presenting an obvious syllogism. It's just inaccurate language. Why are you concerned? Begging the question.What does integrity of the society mean (in this context)?What is your definition of equality?How is equality realized?

1.OK, then you are free to do nothing then Nobody will miss you 2. Capitalisms natural state is imbalance and assumes perpetual growth regardless of ecological effects 3. The integrity of the society is a state of balance. Equality is realized when scarcity is controled

[Lingum]

Why would I take you seriously when you have failed to realize that throwing a few buzzwords into your baseless assertions, doesn't qualify them as arguments? It doesn't even grant you a place at the table of discussions.

[Alan C.]

Would you stop doing what you're doing if everyone had equal pay?

 

Yes, but out of necessity rather than choice.

 

If the State were to impose price controls on labor then the result would be chronic shortages. Most people would then be forced to become more self-sufficient, resulting in a break down of division of labor and specialization. People on the margins of society, who are least capable of taking care of themselves, would perish.

[SigmaTau]

TYT, povertypimps and racehustlers