I study economy at my local university,and this video we just watched is spot on regarding so many things and thoughts that I've had recently.There's a big gap in the economic theories. These are the theories that were the driving factor behind our current economic policies,and it's becoming more apparent to more and more people that they are extremely lacking in their ability to actually reflect reality.In other words, the theories haven't held up. But we don't know how to replace them yet
Which in turn leads to the increase of the inequality mentioned in the video. As someone once said "Making your first million is the hardest" because being an entrepreneur takes time and money, which is something hard to get if you are a wage slave.
A part of this has been a lack of pressure for increased wages from the bottom. In many western states in Europe and America governments at the behest of business interests have increased immigration in order to keep wages of the working class low. While states like Japan and Korea which have ultra low immigration rates have remained substantially more equal than their European and Euro derived counterparts. You don't have to be an economist to know what an increase in supply of labor will do.
Subsequent externalities could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.
and it's interesting if you look at your figures, if wages are going down and the cost of living going up, then money is bubbling up to the top, not dissipating. Change?
To the economy its pretty relevant whether the Sheriff of Nottingham shows up in the village before or after dinner. The solution is to tax wealth at a steady 2% per month, paid before monthly income from salary or capital gains. This way the economy gets a chance to create and sustain before it gets drained.
An employer pays based on the productivity of the worker. In the 1800's the wages in the US quadrupled. This is because of economic freedoms, and it did equal out the classes. The opposite of what government regulation does.
I would argue that the reason less people are investing is because of market uncertainty and market instability. Which is directly related to government intervention in the markets.
Because to do so would require that he moves up on the class-ladder. That is a very difficult thing to do, and almost always, with few exceptions, requires that someone somewhere gives them a hand. Whether that is by offering them education or training or employment, or something else. And TheLivirus accurately describes that this is often contradictory of that person's own benefit.
Debt based economies and government granted resource monopolies and corporate privileges are how we got into this mess. Even things like copyright and patents contribute to such monopolies. Regulations harm honest businesses most, that would ottherwise value their public impact and image. Giving a few financiers all the power to leech of others through rent, ownership and interest, help no others.
Minus all forms of theft (often protected or empowered by the government) and government granted monopolies from IP to land ownership, we'd all be living much better. Not forced to work just to live in our homes, like many who pay monthly rent just to LIVE with a roof over their head or in a given location. That is basically what economic slavery is.
He says in his speech that with the loss of wage growth people have turned to debt to makeup the difference. He says this again, at the end when questioned. He says the wage gap is due to loss of bargaining power and financialization. He completely dismisses globalization as a cause. I don't know how he can do such a thing when it fits into his thesis so simply. It accounts for wage gaps, loss of investment, loss of bargaining power, EVERYTHING. How can he dismiss globalization, when it fits?
Basic economics does *not* tell you that the free market "does everything better". What about negative externalities? Companies have no interest in reducing those, unless regulations force them to do so.
@BF3Minute Good point, but practically can we really use data from more than a hundred years ago, considering the dramatic social and economic changes which have happened? It wouldn't be valid to compare data from before the industrial revolution, for example, to data from recent years im my view.
I think that falling wages are inevitable as people live and work longer, access to education increases globally, and emerging markets compete globally. Falling wages are fine as long as consumers and markets adapt to maintain and improve quality of life, e.g., by using fewer or cheaper resources and producing goods more cheaply. The more skyscrapers that are built, the more people will be able to live and work within smaller areas obviating the need for transportation.
The free market is all about competition, that's what drives it. What's really bad is when corporations (which exist because of the government) lobby for regulations. For example, the owner and founder of Subway said that it would be impossible for him to start his business today because of the regulations. If you take a look at counties with free markets and where there has been free markets, the truth falsifies your claim.
Thanks for replying :) I don't know much about economics and all, but isn't that a paradox? I mean, a person can't move up the class-ladder by himself, and if he/she manages to do so with the help of another, then it may be detrimental to their own welfare. What is a person supposed to do? Maintain their standard of living, no matter how low it is?
Inequality is bad for all of us, even the rich. One of the primary reasons for inequality is a disparity in education, which hobbles the productive potential of the less educated. We need more people to enter engineering and the sciences to work toward improving what really matters: health and life extension.
...but those that do move up have faced tremendous adversity, compared to those of the class above them especially.And even these people most of the time did it with the help of others,whether directly or indirectly.I personally feel that the hardcore capitalists tend to forget that while a person's self-interest might be his motivation,that doesn't mean everything he does is done by himself, and affects only himself. They often also understate the fact that rich can only exist if there are poor
A truely free market has no good mechanisms against monopolies and cartels, in fact it is incentiviced. Monopolies and cartels, on the other hand, have known mechanism to crush competition. The argument is that a market that doesn't allow competition isn't really free and must therefore be "forced to be free".
If we tax wealth, than doesn't that decrease resources needed to facilitate production and increase output? I don't disagree with you, but these problems are more complex. We have to look for solutions within the framework. If you really want economic equality than the current economic system has to be changed.
Thank you for your multiple replies :D I doubt if the rich would ever agree to that, unless there is some major upheaval in the world. Thank you for this discussion, not common on youtube :P
Well, our health care system has had a history for it to be refined through, but there's no reason we can't pay it ourselves, why have the government intermediary?
My point being, Free Market is far from doing everything better. In fact, it carries most of the flaws that are present in our world today. Maybe for those comfortable in their seats, there are no issues, but you forget the millions of people affected around the world by the "Free Market's" actions. I guess its always easier to ignore whats not in front of you, yet I dont see how anyone would rather be oblivious to the issues in his own home.
Changing taxation will do exactly that. Since our current system is antiquated by being based solely on durability and thus needing endless printing of more money, and they all gets sucked up to the top. The reason being that the motivation for trickle down and reinvestment is linked to advantage versus disadvantage. If you can store good at no loss and can not generate further extreme wasteful conspicous spending, then there will be no trickle down. That is why our system fails.
I have to agree that consumers are making poor decisions, but housing has been getting more expensive as years have passed and although it is a commodity it has become almost impossible to earn enough to buy housing without a loan. (when you are in the lower income bracket) I can guess that since the demand has gone up due to population growth and urbanisation the prices have also gone up. However this leads to increased revenue for banks, which in turn can give out more loans and etc, etc.
TH-cam is a very limiting forum :P What I mean is that the party, whoever or whatever it may be, must be willing to sacrifice a certain measure of their own "wealth" for the sake of giving others a chance to accumulate more wealth. In other words, the only way for poor people to become less poor is if rich people accept that they will be less rich, or governments accept that they will sacrifice more of their budget, etc etc, I'm sure you get the picture. of course some people manage to move up
Technological change is a less significant factor than the degradation of labour bargaining power? They're the same thing. Technological advancement, by its very nature, reduces the demand for labour without reducing the supply. As this imbalance increases, the value of labour falls, and, with it, the bargaining power of labourers. It was also the improvements in communication and transport efficiencies that facilitated the mass exodus of jobs.
There also won't be any trickle down in the US when production is moved to China and India. That's the actual reason there's no trickle down in the US, but there's tons in emerging economies. There's really no way to deal with this except trade barriers, otherwise the working classes in the west will see their income drop to those of China and India. So it's simply not in the interests of most people in the west to have full free trade at this point.
If you do a little research on resource based economy then you would see that this concept/way of thinking is the answer to all our problems. MONEY is obsolete... only serving as a limitation to our technical capabilities!!!
The only incentive to lift a person out of wage slavery in a purely capitalistic society is his own persuit of improving his living standards, which he's incapable of by definition. So the improvement of his situation relies solely on the good will of others. This however is not a realistic expectation, since it requires people to contradict their own persuit of improving their livingstandards, and since a necessary condition of wage slavery is class segregation which obstructs empathy.
Adults suck at running things... I wanna know about the economy of mud pies and butterflies. It seems like everyone tells their kid to share, then teaches them that stealing from people they can't see is how "the real world" works.
I think labor the last 30 years has become less scarce due to technology and (in the Netherlands) by women's participation. This does not change automatically. Politics must ensure that work shall be scarce again. Learn more, earlier retirement, extending unemployment benefits are some instruments. I think that's possible if wages go down in (semi) public sectors. Accounting for about half of the employment in the Netherlands. Perhaps time to increase some taxes too. :-) .
People that say there's no problem with capitalism are like alcoholic that say there's nothing wrong with their addiction. It hurts everybody around them but they deny it.
Of course, the actual consequence won't be a drop in salaries in the short term, because it's impossible to live on Chinese salaries in the west, but rather huge unemployment until such time as the economic situation stabilizes and production in the west gets profitable again(Or until productivity increases so much that people are just fine with living on welfare).
Good description of inequality problem, but poor analysis of its causes. It's state protection of finance that allows for inequality of income. Stop monopolizing money and you solve a lot of problems at once. How can you look at inequality and argue for more interference?
Communism, socialism and capitalism are not inherently problematic, authoritarian governments do, like fascism. Each system does have their own flaws but work. No system giving a government complete monopoly of authority works well for the citizens not in control of it. Free markets are best and ones based on resources (things of value), not money. Government involvement is fine when it isn't coercive, it has to be VOLUNTARY by each individual. Governments should focus on natural rights.
Like how many socialists like to talk about Industrial revolutionaries as though we still live in those times. If such data was to be used then I think we should use as much data as possible over the longest period of time possible if only to see how much things have change in recent decades.
Which is why in the last 30 years wages have frozen while productivity has SKYROCKETED right? Oh wait, I forgot, it must be the governments fault for.... What? *Not* raising the minimum wage?
> people get more stuff for less human effort Not true. Tech changes are only introduced where they are expected to reduce the overall cost of labour, and, in effect, increases the amount of stuff in the system for the amount of work done by people. With less work/lower pay, the capacity for consumption drops, and the whole system stagnates or contracts. It was only government redistribution of profits, and huge levels of consumer debt, that kept it afloat till now.
There are a number of analogies one can draw with this thinking: get rid of democracy because a dictatorship is more effective, get rid of multiple parties because a one-party state is more efficient. The fact is, the 'capitalism' you speak of has never existed, ever. All the major Western powers and the Asian powers rose in times of strong state interventionism in the economy, in times of strong protectionism, capital controls etc. There is absolutely no evidence for this simple-minded theory.
our* Why is our hell system more effective, I don't know if I would say it's more effective, I would have to look at all the factors before reaching that conclusion.
That's not even true. Who is investing less? Not the people already making investments, ie, capital holders. They just move the capital around. Basic economics and investment sense. Depending on the market situation and the current economy, you move your assets between different forms of investments. They don't make less investments at all. Only people who literally don't have any money to invest will be guaranteed to never invest at all. You can't invest when you lack a surplus in your budget.
define 'give'? fact is, if you took the money from the 1% and redistributed, it would only be a matter of time until it was back in the hands of that original elite. the poor/middle class would squander it as they currently do, more or less. It is more a way of life than it is a condition, just as there is a difference between labor and managerial skill/talent.
I second that, but you're never going to get through to the ultra-liberal trolls you see lolling about in the comments to videos like this. Trust me, I've spent hours trying...
Privatization does wonders. We are conversing on a computer developed by private enterprises, had the government monopolized the production of computers we probably couldn't afford one. This is basic economics. The free market does everything better. Obviously you know squat about taxation. The top 1% pay 37% of the taxes, and the bottom 40% get money from the government. I agree it pays to be equal, and you know how to do that? Get the government out of the economy. It works, and it's proven.
lowering government spending is only good for those that pay above-average taxes (dollars not %). They pay for their own use of the government services, but also partially for someone else. For the poorest 50% of the nation it is better with government services than privatized services. Thus, the right can only get elected if all the 50% richest AND one poor person vote for them, so they fool people with trickle-down economy and whatnot. The rich vote left to survive even if they become poor.
Nope. What I'm saying is that the reff should not give out steroids to team rich (allow them to to create money from thin air thereby cheating on everyone else). Sometimes it's better to play without a reff and play fair than having a reff who is only impartial on paper.
Primitivism is the answer to this crisis Australian aboriginies, eskimos and the tribes people of Papa new Guinea work no more than 4 hours a day and have no wars and perfect equality
Stop taxing income and only tax wealth. The upper class will only get creative if they have a motivation. The lower class will stop the hustle and bustle economy if they do not have any assets and liquidity.
Yes, there is no free market yet people still blame the free market while the socialist empire is expanding and doing nothing to alleviate the problems. It's bat shit crazy to blame capitalism.
"The top 1% pay 37% of the taxes,..." Well that is a myth, and how naive can you be ? The top 1% also made about one fifth of the total income last year.. Thats 1/5 for one percent of people out of 100.. Do you realize how MUCH that is, and its only for the 1% of an entire population. 99% share the rest.. and even then its not enough because people are still poor.. people now cant afford basic necessities (health, food&water -forget pc's) which are also privatized. Again, how naive can you be.
That's empty rhetoric. The benevolent masters will see their employees need to be paid more or they'll shift to another overlord. Just look at recent data; all the productivity gains of the last 30 years have gone to a tiny slice of the population, and real wages for the median worker have stagnated. This simple-minded pseudo-psychology (which is not what you learn in any respectable macro course) is something you learn in a politically-charged 'economics 101' course online.
I study economy at my local university,and this video we just watched is spot on regarding so many things and thoughts that I've had recently.There's a big gap in the economic theories. These are the theories that were the driving factor behind our current economic policies,and it's becoming more apparent to more and more people that they are extremely lacking in their ability to actually reflect reality.In other words, the theories haven't held up. But we don't know how to replace them yet
Which in turn leads to the increase of the inequality mentioned in the video. As someone once said "Making your first million is the hardest" because being an entrepreneur takes time and money, which is something hard to get if you are a wage slave.
A part of this has been a lack of pressure for increased wages from the bottom. In many western states in Europe and America governments at the behest of business interests have increased immigration in order to keep wages of the working class low.
While states like Japan and Korea which have ultra low immigration rates have remained substantially more equal than their European and Euro derived counterparts.
You don't have to be an economist to know what an increase in supply of labor will do.
Good argument.
Well said.Of course they know what they are doing.
My pleasure! :D
Subsequent externalities could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.
I like his voice
Was it David Attenborough's voice in the beginning?
The problem with that is, how are you going to stop wealth from leaving?
and it's interesting if you look at your figures, if wages are going down and the cost of living going up, then money is bubbling up to the top, not dissipating. Change?
To the economy its pretty relevant whether the Sheriff of Nottingham shows up in the village before or after dinner. The solution is to tax wealth at a steady 2% per month, paid before monthly income from salary or capital gains. This way the economy gets a chance to create and sustain before it gets drained.
An employer pays based on the productivity of the worker.
In the 1800's the wages in the US quadrupled. This is because of economic freedoms, and it did equal out the classes. The opposite of what government regulation does.
I would argue that the reason less people are investing is because of market uncertainty and market instability. Which is directly related to government intervention in the markets.
I'm afraid this man is right !
Because to do so would require that he moves up on the class-ladder. That is a very difficult thing to do, and almost always, with few exceptions, requires that someone somewhere gives them a hand. Whether that is by offering them education or training or employment, or something else. And TheLivirus accurately describes that this is often contradictory of that person's own benefit.
Debt based economies and government granted resource monopolies and corporate privileges are how we got into this mess. Even things like copyright and patents contribute to such monopolies. Regulations harm honest businesses most, that would ottherwise value their public impact and image.
Giving a few financiers all the power to leech of others through rent, ownership and interest, help no others.
Minus all forms of theft (often protected or empowered by the government) and government granted monopolies from IP to land ownership, we'd all be living much better. Not forced to work just to live in our homes, like many who pay monthly rent just to LIVE with a roof over their head or in a given location. That is basically what economic slavery is.
He says in his speech that with the loss of wage growth people have turned to debt to makeup the difference. He says this again, at the end when questioned. He says the wage gap is due to loss of bargaining power and financialization. He completely dismisses globalization as a cause. I don't know how he can do such a thing when it fits into his thesis so simply. It accounts for wage gaps, loss of investment, loss of bargaining power, EVERYTHING. How can he dismiss globalization, when it fits?
Basic economics does *not* tell you that the free market "does everything better". What about negative externalities? Companies have no interest in reducing those, unless regulations force them to do so.
Working class wages have declined for the last 30 years. Cost of living has increased 800%. How do I know this, I've worked and am living it.
@BF3Minute
Good point, but practically can we really use data from more than a hundred years ago, considering the dramatic social and economic changes which have happened? It wouldn't be valid to compare data from before the industrial revolution, for example, to data from recent years im my view.
I think that falling wages are inevitable as people live and work longer, access to education increases globally, and emerging markets compete globally. Falling wages are fine as long as consumers and markets adapt to maintain and improve quality of life, e.g., by using fewer or cheaper resources and producing goods more cheaply. The more skyscrapers that are built, the more people will be able to live and work within smaller areas obviating the need for transportation.
When you say "the free market" do you mean a truely free market or one that is forced to be free using market regulation?
The free market is all about competition, that's what drives it. What's really bad is when corporations (which exist because of the government) lobby for regulations. For example, the owner and founder of Subway said that it would be impossible for him to start his business today because of the regulations. If you take a look at counties with free markets and where there has been free markets, the truth falsifies your claim.
Thanks for replying :) I don't know much about economics and all, but isn't that a paradox? I mean, a person can't move up the class-ladder by himself, and if he/she manages to do so with the help of another, then it may be detrimental to their own welfare. What is a person supposed to do? Maintain their standard of living, no matter how low it is?
Inequality is bad for all of us, even the rich. One of the primary reasons for inequality is a disparity in education, which hobbles the productive potential of the less educated. We need more people to enter engineering and the sciences to work toward improving what really matters: health and life extension.
I agree.
...but those that do move up have faced tremendous adversity, compared to those of the class above them especially.And even these people most of the time did it with the help of others,whether directly or indirectly.I personally feel that the hardcore capitalists tend to forget that while a person's self-interest might be his motivation,that doesn't mean everything he does is done by himself, and affects only himself. They often also understate the fact that rich can only exist if there are poor
I'm currently taking an entire economics program, and I say that you're wrong :)
A truely free market has no good mechanisms against monopolies and cartels, in fact it is incentiviced. Monopolies and cartels, on the other hand, have known mechanism to crush competition. The argument is that a market that doesn't allow competition isn't really free and must therefore be "forced to be free".
If we tax wealth, than doesn't that decrease resources needed to facilitate production and increase output? I don't disagree with you, but these problems are more complex. We have to look for solutions within the framework. If you really want economic equality than the current economic system has to be changed.
Because the last hundred years is a large enough sample size?
Thank you for your multiple replies :D I doubt if the rich would ever agree to that, unless there is some major upheaval in the world. Thank you for this discussion, not common on youtube :P
Well, our health care system has had a history for it to be refined through, but there's no reason we can't pay it ourselves, why have the government intermediary?
Why was inequality falling until the late 70s? 1:35
There will be no chance until??
My point being, Free Market is far from doing everything better. In fact, it carries most of the flaws that are present in our world today.
Maybe for those comfortable in their seats, there are no issues, but you forget the millions of people affected around the world by the "Free Market's" actions.
I guess its always easier to ignore whats not in front of you, yet I dont see how anyone would rather be oblivious to the issues in his own home.
Changing taxation will do exactly that. Since our current system is antiquated by being based solely on durability and thus needing endless printing of more money, and they all gets sucked up to the top. The reason being that the motivation for trickle down and reinvestment is linked to advantage versus disadvantage. If you can store good at no loss and can not generate further extreme wasteful conspicous spending, then there will be no trickle down. That is why our system fails.
I have to agree that consumers are making poor decisions, but housing has been getting more expensive as years have passed and although it is a commodity it has become almost impossible to earn enough to buy housing without a loan. (when you are in the lower income bracket) I can guess that since the demand has gone up due to population growth and urbanisation the prices have also gone up. However this leads to increased revenue for banks, which in turn can give out more loans and etc, etc.
Maybe you should clarify when you say "Which is why..."
The Market was never free. From the beginning people needed to be forced into the factories.
What do you mean? Could you please explain that to me?
If you are referring to the central bank, it is a tenet of socialism. Capitalism doesn't have a central bank. And what's wrong with banks in general?
TH-cam is a very limiting forum :P
What I mean is that the party, whoever or whatever it may be, must be willing to sacrifice a certain measure of their own "wealth" for the sake of giving others a chance to accumulate more wealth. In other words, the only way for poor people to become less poor is if rich people accept that they will be less rich, or governments accept that they will sacrifice more of their budget, etc etc, I'm sure you get the picture. of course some people manage to move up
Technological change is a less significant factor than the degradation of labour bargaining power? They're the same thing. Technological advancement, by its very nature, reduces the demand for labour without reducing the supply. As this imbalance increases, the value of labour falls, and, with it, the bargaining power of labourers. It was also the improvements in communication and transport efficiencies that facilitated the mass exodus of jobs.
There also won't be any trickle down in the US when production is moved to China and India. That's the actual reason there's no trickle down in the US, but there's tons in emerging economies. There's really no way to deal with this except trade barriers, otherwise the working classes in the west will see their income drop to those of China and India. So it's simply not in the interests of most people in the west to have full free trade at this point.
Did you watch the video at all?
If you do a little research on resource based economy then you would see that this concept/way of thinking is the answer to all our problems. MONEY is obsolete... only serving as a limitation to our technical capabilities!!!
The bottom 1% ...
I got nothing. I was trying to make a joke but it's just too depressing; too real.
The only incentive to lift a person out of wage slavery in a purely capitalistic society is his own persuit of improving his living standards, which he's incapable of by definition.
So the improvement of his situation relies solely on the good will of others. This however is not a realistic expectation, since it requires people to contradict their own persuit of improving their livingstandards, and since a necessary condition of wage slavery is class segregation which obstructs empathy.
Adults suck at running things... I wanna know about the economy of mud pies and butterflies. It seems like everyone tells their kid to share, then teaches them that stealing from people they can't see is how "the real world" works.
I was referring to the definition of wage slavery.
I think labor the last 30 years has become less scarce due to technology and (in the Netherlands) by women's participation. This does not change automatically.
Politics must ensure that work shall be scarce again. Learn more, earlier retirement, extending unemployment benefits are some instruments.
I think that's possible if wages go down in (semi) public sectors. Accounting for about half of the employment in the Netherlands.
Perhaps time to increase some taxes too. :-) .
So it Is Class Warfare.
People that say there's no problem with capitalism are like alcoholic that say there's nothing wrong with their addiction. It hurts everybody around them but they deny it.
*more than the minimum is what I meant to say.
What your saying is like that when we see cheating in sports that we need to get rid of reffs.
Of course, the actual consequence won't be a drop in salaries in the short term, because it's impossible to live on Chinese salaries in the west, but rather huge unemployment until such time as the economic situation stabilizes and production in the west gets profitable again(Or until productivity increases so much that people are just fine with living on welfare).
Good description of inequality problem, but poor analysis of its causes. It's state protection of finance that allows for inequality of income. Stop monopolizing money and you solve a lot of problems at once. How can you look at inequality and argue for more interference?
German wage restraint directly caused the Euro crisis.
Communism, socialism and capitalism are not inherently problematic, authoritarian governments do, like fascism. Each system does have their own flaws but work.
No system giving a government complete monopoly of authority works well for the citizens not in control of it. Free markets are best and ones based on resources (things of value), not money.
Government involvement is fine when it isn't coercive, it has to be VOLUNTARY by each individual. Governments should focus on natural rights.
Like how many socialists like to talk about Industrial revolutionaries as though we still live in those times. If such data was to be used then I think we should use as much data as possible over the longest period of time possible if only to see how much things have change in recent decades.
It was the private sector that advanced it.
Which is why in the last 30 years wages have frozen while productivity has SKYROCKETED right?
Oh wait, I forgot, it must be the governments fault for.... What? *Not* raising the minimum wage?
> people get more stuff for less human effort
Not true. Tech changes are only introduced where they are expected to reduce the overall cost of labour, and, in effect, increases the amount of stuff in the system for the amount of work done by people. With less work/lower pay, the capacity for consumption drops, and the whole system stagnates or contracts. It was only government redistribution of profits, and huge levels of consumer debt, that kept it afloat till now.
There are a number of analogies one can draw with this thinking: get rid of democracy because a dictatorship is more effective, get rid of multiple parties because a one-party state is more efficient. The fact is, the 'capitalism' you speak of has never existed, ever. All the major Western powers and the Asian powers rose in times of strong state interventionism in the economy, in times of strong protectionism, capital controls etc. There is absolutely no evidence for this simple-minded theory.
our*
Why is our hell system more effective, I don't know if I would say it's more effective, I would have to look at all the factors before reaching that conclusion.
That's not even true. Who is investing less? Not the people already making investments, ie, capital holders. They just move the capital around. Basic economics and investment sense. Depending on the market situation and the current economy, you move your assets between different forms of investments. They don't make less investments at all. Only people who literally don't have any money to invest will be guaranteed to never invest at all. You can't invest when you lack a surplus in your budget.
At 12 min. Clues to mass shootings, road rage, DV.
define 'give'? fact is, if you took the money from the 1% and redistributed, it would only be a matter of time until it was back in the hands of that original elite. the poor/middle class would squander it as they currently do, more or less. It is more a way of life than it is a condition, just as there is a difference between labor and managerial skill/talent.
Automation, improved productivity and free trade are double edge swords. Fortunately, China had found a solution to it already.
The comments are more disturbing than the video.
I second that, but you're never going to get through to the ultra-liberal trolls you see lolling about in the comments to videos like this. Trust me, I've spent hours trying...
Privatization does wonders. We are conversing on a computer developed by private enterprises, had the government monopolized the production of computers we probably couldn't afford one. This is basic economics. The free market does everything better.
Obviously you know squat about taxation. The top 1% pay 37% of the taxes, and the bottom 40% get money from the government.
I agree it pays to be equal, and you know how to do that? Get the government out of the economy. It works, and it's proven.
lowering government spending is only good for those that pay above-average taxes (dollars not %). They pay for their own use of the government services, but also partially for someone else. For the poorest 50% of the nation it is better with government services than privatized services. Thus, the right can only get elected if all the 50% richest AND one poor person vote for them, so they fool people with trickle-down economy and whatnot. The rich vote left to survive even if they become poor.
Nope. What I'm saying is that the reff should not give out steroids to team rich (allow them to to create money from thin air thereby cheating on everyone else). Sometimes it's better to play without a reff and play fair than having a reff who is only impartial on paper.
Yes I did, and I appreciate your humility on the subject, give this a watch, should explain what you brought up. Let me know.
/watch?v=O4Lvu6ngmlU
Primitivism is the answer to this crisis
Australian aboriginies, eskimos and the tribes people of Papa new Guinea work no more than 4 hours a day and have no wars and perfect equality
Sup dawg. :D
Stop taxing income and only tax wealth. The upper class will only get creative if they have a motivation. The lower class will stop the hustle and bustle economy if they do not have any assets and liquidity.
How in the hell is he incapable!?
Yes, there is no free market yet people still blame the free market while the socialist empire is expanding and doing nothing to alleviate the problems.
It's bat shit crazy to blame capitalism.
"The top 1% pay 37% of the taxes,..." Well that is a myth, and how naive can you be ? The top 1% also made about one fifth of the total income last year.. Thats 1/5 for one percent of people out of 100.. Do you realize how MUCH that is, and its only for the 1% of an entire population. 99% share the rest.. and even then its not enough because people are still poor.. people now cant afford basic necessities (health, food&water -forget pc's) which are also privatized.
Again, how naive can you be.
Yeah deregulation has done wonders in the banking industry.
Oh wait.
health*
Haha, I'm fucking tired.
Why is a person incapable of improving his own living standards?
Capitalism does work... it just needs a bit of overhead.
Don't believe it? Take a fucking economics course if that what it takes.
That's empty rhetoric. The benevolent masters will see their employees need to be paid more or they'll shift to another overlord. Just look at recent data; all the productivity gains of the last 30 years have gone to a tiny slice of the population, and real wages for the median worker have stagnated. This simple-minded pseudo-psychology (which is not what you learn in any respectable macro course) is something you learn in a politically-charged 'economics 101' course online.
Crime
oh, another victim. how unfortunate...
Bullshit.