I saw your original talk with Vaush. I didn’t like how he was live reading criticisms of IMF like it was his first time seeing this information. He has strong opinions without knowing what he’s talking about. You know what you’re talking about though and held your cool.
Saw this on Twitter. Destiny’s convos aren’t always the best even when he has experts on but this was really neat. The guys not perfect but I appreciate his perspective on a lot of things, and I’m hooked on your channel now.
I just found your content, and I am a big fan. I just wanted to give my 2 cents in that I disagree with destiny about needing to be aggressive when Vaush got aggressive. I think you handled it very well and your tone made me like you more and trust what you were saying more. Staying professional is better in my opinion.
The weirdest thing about the capital gains tax is that the brackets are pegged to your AGI, and aren't graduated the way income tax is, so you could pay 0% but if you make $1 more, you pay 15%
Regarding the “using non-productive assets (ie - stocks) as collateral for a loan instead of selling the asset in order to have money to spend” issue, and Destiny is right that this is a big workaround for capital gains taxes, this can easily be solved by taxing this type of transaction at the applicable capital gains rate. If you are going to use capital gains taxes as a “wealth tax” (which we should) then there should be this “loan tax” for lack of a better word as well
I thought the calm and level headed approach with Vuash was the right one. Vaush clearly has motivated reasoning and that doesn't unwind in one talk. Keeping plugging away in a level manner and not acknowledging tone keeps the focus 100% on the subject matter, which is what you want. Vaush isn't dumb, and I think the points you made will gnaw at him to make him research and learn more, which can only be a good thing. I actually think his recent attacks towards SocDems in general are a product of researching more (and facing the uncomfortable realisation that he is, or will soon be, a SocDem himself, and is resisting it)..Doing more research will, inevitably, hasten this
I remember discovering your channel a while ago through a Collab with money & macro. At the time I saw one of your videos talking to a socialist and thought you and Destiny would have a lot to talk about. Well what a surprise it was to open stream and see Destiny watching a debate between you and Vaush lol. Cool to see you making connections with lots of other creators, love your stuff!
A good example of a current business that has seen material change due to ESG is Exxon. Engine One won at least two board seats (I don’t remember the specific number) and E1 is causing real change on ESG grounds.
Exxon electing activist board members is probably a good example. I remember reading about that. I believe the board over at Exxon is now 1/3 climate-centric/activist board members.
@@Econoboi The only thing that may make it a little more challenging though is how current it is. It may be hard to get the evidence of the ESG impact of those directors because of how current this is
@@damiendiem I haven't read up on it enough, but I don't see the big downsides (nor the huge upsides). I've heard that it's bad for buisnesses since inheritors will have to sell stock, but I've also seen evidence showing that inherited buisness perform worse than those with outside leadership. One upside, Especially in a social democracy like mine, is that it counters inequality, though I don't think it does so very effectively. I'd probably be fine with replacing it with a high capital gains bracket or perhaps a higher land tax, but I honestly don't know.
@@EusebiusAT Its easily by passed by using shell corporations and restructuring the assets into trusts. The problem is the need to tax the "same capital" again and again through different means. If the wealth is held in shares those would already be under the purview of capital gains when realized. If the inheritors lives off the dividend instead of selling they would have to pay the dividend tax.
I think Econ did fine in the debate with Vaush. Rose Wrist did a good review and I largely agree with his position. I think, on the whole, it was a good conversation. Now if you believe that neoclassical economics that may be completely unacceptable and hands may have to be thrown but you have a new sub (at least until you stan neoclassical economics ;) )
Awesome video, I had a bit of trepidation about universal education at the college level but hearing you speak about it made me more amicable to it. I have a question about NIT and welfare, however, you said that you would prefer a NIT of say 25-30K per year for lower income people over welfare since from a market standpoint it would be more efficient and that makes sense, so is it possible to have both welfare and a NIT of 25K per year? Would that have more significant drawbacks than pros?
I'm just not sure we'd need both. An NIT like I described would be fairly expensive, and part of the selling point of an NIT is the bureaucratic savings associated vs welfare.
I am a Vaush fan and I can tell you economics is his weak point after watching him for a while now. I don't know why he keeps doing it, but he ends up walking himself into a position where he doesn't know what he is talking about. He did it pretty dramatically when he was commenting on Die Linke in the German elections and since I follow German politics, I knew when it was happening that he clearly had no idea. I also remember he said some pretty misinformed things about planned economies that didn't allow for nuance and I encouraged him to do a research stream on planned economies. He never did it. Vaush is at his best when talking about social issues in the US, because that's the area that he knows what he's talking about. I didn't agree with everything you said in that discussion but I think you came out looking better, so koodos. Ill certainty check out more of your work.
Vaush fan here too, I have similar feelings. I think Vaush should do a bit more listening to economists when discussing these issues with them. I do feel like Vaush's criticisms on economics imperialism were on point, but otherwise he was pretty weak in that debate. Should have read more theory ;)
Vaush is only good at one thing. Rethoric. Problem with that is Rethoric stops working as soon as you start talking to someone who actually knows his shit.
I think what you're seeing is the beginnings of some cognitive dissonance in Vaush, over this particular area. When Vaush uses empirical data against Conservatives, there's a lot to draw on that will back his positions. But when he is specifically advocating for socialism, or against social democracy, he has a lot less to fall back on. Even when arguing for his favored mainstay of worker co-ops, there's not really enough solid data to go into battle with. And you can see this in the shift in tone, he knows in these cases he's not particularly well armed (mainly because of the contrast for when he is sufficiently well armed), and he'll talk about wanting to do more research. But I think the problem is that, as a bright guy, subconsciously he knows that when he does more research...its going to move him away from his more socialist positions, not towards them Thats why I think you see when he did his Econ research stream, he got drunk. I think on some level he already knows there isn't sufficient evidence to support some of his positions, but doesn't want to face it
With regard to the discussion around 1:15:04 about how to solve the issue of controlling tuition fee maximums, there's an easy solution the Dutch use. You just cap the legal amount of tuition fees a university is allowed to charge nationwide and let universities figure out how to deal with the budget that follows. If you really want you can also index that maximum fee and adapit it for every state based on the purchasing power (or some other prosperity-measuring number, I dunno what would work better) to account for differences in expensive or cheap states.
or you could have tuition free universities where the costs aren't passed onto the consumer through prices, but are funded through government taxation and borrowing. why means test when universal programs usually have lower price tags? Denmark literally pays people to go to college, and so could we, and the increase in skill competitiveness would be enough to justify that expenditure. the ROI is there, and it makes sense not only to figuratively invest in our student's future, but to financially incentivize individual students, rather to financially disincentivize them in the way that we are doing. but its not the students receiving the incentive, but the administrators getting crazy amounts of funds that they then vote on increasing admin wages while cutting faculty pay and increasing tuition. capping tuition fee's is a good thing, but why do we need to have private individual tuitions that remain in the private sphere, versus the benefits of having a public collective tuition paid by government taxation and borrowing?
@@ethanstump sure, that'd be a direction I want to go in too. But it's easier to keep the current infrastructure as a first step. Also, how do you pay for everyone and account for differences in quality of life as well as education per region? A 1000 dollars will get you a lot further in one place compared to the next. That would take a lot of work to figure out, and because the US is a federal state, you'd have to spend a lot more time figuring that out instead per state. A tuition cap naturally addresses many excesses in US colleges without the need for a lot of tailored efforts by states.
i agree that paying everyone to go to school may not completely be feasible in every area if you did it by state and local taxes, which is why the federal government would step in to subsidize students directly. also, if tuition is completely subsidized by the federal government, why would you need to adjust for education levels? if some schools are better than others, doesn't that mean people will move to the better schools, no longer needing to factor in the "cost"? means testing programs increases spending, not lowers it. universal programs are usually much cheaper to administrate than means tested programs. they are also more ineffective than universal programs, which means underclaiming, which would hurt skills training which is important for a competitive workforce, which is why Europe has a more educated workforce than the US. even a probusiness lens can justify subsidized education. which is why many companies already subsidize education for THEIR employees. and if universal programs lower spending, why not do it? www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/jan/14/means-testing-benefits-not-efficient-fair or am i not understanding your argument?
@@ethanstump Okay so just because Harvard is free now, it's not suddenly open to all, right? There's differences in quality between institutions but the solution wouldn't be to ask everyone to move to the best places. It's to improve the quality of the lesser schools. I'm not sure how it works with this in the US, but you need to perform entry tests before certain programmes, I assume? So even if Harvard had infinite capacity, not everyone could go there anyway. I'm totally with you on universal programmes being the better option, but we can't factor out the states as an actor right? It seems fair to give them mechanisms by which to prioritize how to improve their state's education. Maybe that can be done without means testing, but it seems to make sense to me to enable states to provide students with an adjusted baseline level of support for that area.
1:17:33 Land value taxes meet those criteria, that being easy to calculate (through a bunch of mechanisms), impossible to dodge (can't hide land). Plus, land value taxes are equitable since those who own the land with the greatest value are the richest. All while not having any deadweight loss.
The point about "matching your opponents tone" vs keeping a level head and being less animated is interesting. I think the best example of this was Vaush vs Perspective Philosophy. Vaush was incredibly out of his depth, so he went with the same strategy of aggression and mocking, but PP just kept his head and called out what he was doing as he did it and it made Vaush look absolutely terrible.
Destiny says that capital gains tax rates should rise at around 17:10. Do you agree? If so, can you explain why (aren't they basically as bad as corporate taxes insofar as they distort decision-making)?
Corporation and individuals are the same. Humour me here. Dividends,capital gains and estate tax tax should be 0%, BUT government should be progressively taxing the corporates for their gross profit just like individual income tax rates. Where gross profit includes the cost of goods and labour cost, it should not include any administrative overhead, expenditure on assets and any other expenditures. Individual person is taxed for their gross profit (tax on income), not on profit after administrative cost (housing, food, health care) and reinvestment (education, transportation, clothes, household goods, recreation to unwind). It is impossible to determine which are legitimate administrative and reinvestment, for every individual. So, it is impossible to find net earnings after expenses. Current taxation helps in rapidly building capital assets (amazon paid 0$ in corporate tax) but doesn't help in building a personal lifestyle for individuals. Like housing, food, healthcare, education and a healthy lifestyle, because people are taxed for their gross profits and companies are taxed for their earnings after all the expenses. Should the government tax corporations from their gross profits? PS: I understand this might slow down innovation, but this approach will provide an EGALITARIAN playing ground for poor people and the rich in building wealth.
Can Destiny please stop fucking talking about Marx, it physically hurts me how little he knows about the subject and makes it hard to watch his videos. I have read the entirety of Marx's Capital volume one and Marx ABSOLUTELY considered exploitation a moral wrong. He talked about it analytically, as in, how surplus value was extracted from surplus labor and expropriated, but he absolutely linked that to greed and considered it a moral wrong. Read chapter 10, especially section 3 and you will see that for yourself. Destiny CONSTANTLY rails on people when they talk about subjects they have no business discussing and I have to endure that nonsense from him when I just want him to stick to his surface level knowledge and dunk on idiots that know less. Either actually read his work or stay in your lane, otherwise he is being very hypocritical.
I'm a little confused by your claim that if the market for pharmaceuticals in the US was changed that it wouldn't affect pharmaceuticals worldwide. Doesn't every pharma company benefit from being able to sell in the US? That's the question. If the US regulated down, or negotiated down, or went single payer and then started refusing to purchase certain expensive/new pharma and other medical technology, that would deprive these co's of the largest market in the world to recoup their R&D and regulatory costs, no?
I came here after just watching you on Destiny's channel, you did great and Vaush was a complete tool as usual. I'd say you've earned a sub but it's conditional. I'll only sub to you if you promise to stop smacking your lips or clicking your tongue or whatever tf you're doing before you start every sentence. IT WAS DRIVING ME MENTAL! other than that you're awesome lol.
The wealth tax to me isn’t so much about trying to stick it to wealthy individuals(though I’m certainly someone who believes billionaires should not exist), it’s more about preventing the rise of perpetually intergenerational aristocracy in the extreme. It’s about stopping the exponential increase of wealth by people and their children and grandchildren who subsequently inherit most of that incredible fortune, continuing an unjust stratification of human civilization and enabling them to have incredible influence over the lives of literally billions of other humans on our planet.
@@pellelindtner3488 Not enough. So much wealth can be accumulated in one person’s lifetime that that are able to turn their children into birthright lords during their lifetimes and into the future. I don’t want my son to be ruled over by Elon Musk’s children, and no one else should either.
So as an Arizonan, it sounds like I should get a coalition of lefties and progressives to promise Sinema they will love her unconditionally if she banks left?
i've been thinking of a way to make a wealth tax simpler to implement. since figuring out how much wealth everyone has is hard, we just let them figure it out themselves. but if they refuse to sell something for a value above the one they valued , we just charge them with tax evasion . so let's say someone owns a factory that's worth 4 million. but they under-evaluate it. they claim it's worth only 2 million, in order to pay half the taxes on it. then if anyone offers to buy it from them for 3 mil, they have to accept or they go to prison. how does it sound ?
Any kind of system where you're forcing people to sell their property is going to be a total clusterfuck... in this system if I am a small business owner and I want to hold on to that business I'm forced to massively overreport the value and pay extra tax on it or risk having it bought out from under me by a larger business at any time. Also, it's not practical to be constantly re-assessing the value of your property but if you don't and your business does really well for a couple of months and gains in value are you forced to sell it for the start-of-year price?
@@666lumberjack about your first point. why would you need to do it massively tho? whouldn't just do it a little? wouldn't that be enough? also, wouldn't everyone need to do it at least a little? this doesn't put you under any disadvantage against our competitors. a business already does reports every quarters. it's already enough information in them to reevaluate the business. not hard.
@@aresgood1 I think large companies would be able to buy out all smaller competitors under this system, because it may be worth it for a large company to pay more to eliminate all competition, then just jack up prices afterward. The small business owners would have no choice to refuse the sale.
The way I see it, government not spending money productively is the same as a person sitting on a heap of cash and not investing it. You can argue which spending programs have higher or lower ROI, which existing programs should be optimised/stopped, but saying we should stop/cut all spending is a braindead take by financially illiterate morons. If your concern is government being wasteful, inefficient, siphoning money into private pockets, the solution is STILL not stopping spending but advocating for more transparency laws, better funding of agencies tasked with investigating funds' mismanagement etc, tighter laws on how the government can spend money, funding more policy research in order to find out whic programs work as intended, which ones don't etc. In short, we should both be spending more and have better policies overseeing that spending. Very rarely do I see the right advocate for something substantive when it comes to the latter. 'Lower taxes, cut government spending' is just lazy pandering and virtue signalling to people who are illiterate about finance and policy.
New fan here. You're demeanor and cool was a breath of fresh air in a space that's dominated by pretentious ego.
Well done
Thanks bud!
I saw your original talk with Vaush. I didn’t like how he was live reading criticisms of IMF like it was his first time seeing this information. He has strong opinions without knowing what he’s talking about. You know what you’re talking about though and held your cool.
Yeah this channel is up next
Thanks!
100%
Wdym?
Eb got owned in the debate. His pathetic dual masters could not hold up to Vaush's wealth of knowledge from TH-cam videos and twitter headlines.
Vaush has now outpaced EVERYONE, intellectually.
YESSSSSSSS
Not to mention wikipedia and result 1 on google
Just as well the issue of the IMF has nothing to do with economics lol.
@@hemiedwards217 International *Monetary* Fund has nothing to do with economics LMAO
This is the biggest W yet. I've watched Destiny for years so I'm pretty excited to see this.
Saw this on Twitter.
Destiny’s convos aren’t always the best even when he has experts on but this was really neat. The guys not perfect but I appreciate his perspective on a lot of things, and I’m hooked on your channel now.
Thank you it means a lot!
Beta male
Your channel icon looks similar to veritasium lol
Super good discussion between you guys! Really cool that Destiny seemed genuinely interested in your econ takes.
I just found your content, and I am a big fan. I just wanted to give my 2 cents in that I disagree with destiny about needing to be aggressive when Vaush got aggressive. I think you handled it very well and your tone made me like you more and trust what you were saying more. Staying professional is better in my opinion.
Here from reddit, love ur channel!
Love u!
The weirdest thing about the capital gains tax is that the brackets are pegged to your AGI, and aren't graduated the way income tax is, so you could pay 0% but if you make $1 more, you pay 15%
Dude! You’re on the come up ‼️‼️
Regarding the “using non-productive assets (ie - stocks) as collateral for a loan instead of selling the asset in order to have money to spend” issue, and Destiny is right that this is a big workaround for capital gains taxes, this can easily be solved by taxing this type of transaction at the applicable capital gains rate.
If you are going to use capital gains taxes as a “wealth tax” (which we should) then there should be this “loan tax” for lack of a better word as well
I thought the calm and level headed approach with Vuash was the right one. Vaush clearly has motivated reasoning and that doesn't unwind in one talk. Keeping plugging away in a level manner and not acknowledging tone keeps the focus 100% on the subject matter, which is what you want. Vaush isn't dumb, and I think the points you made will gnaw at him to make him research and learn more, which can only be a good thing.
I actually think his recent attacks towards SocDems in general are a product of researching more (and facing the uncomfortable realisation that he is, or will soon be, a SocDem himself, and is resisting it)..Doing more research will, inevitably, hasten this
I remember discovering your channel a while ago through a Collab with money & macro. At the time I saw one of your videos talking to a socialist and thought you and Destiny would have a lot to talk about.
Well what a surprise it was to open stream and see Destiny watching a debate between you and Vaush lol.
Cool to see you making connections with lots of other creators, love your stuff!
Thanks Sasha!
i have just found ur channel, keep up the good work.
Based to see an American quoting Paul Keating
Thanks mate!
Jesus this amazing. Wish you guys made more content together.
Thanks!
The Alex Nowrasteh clip you mentioned was definitely entertaining and true about CATO.
A good example of a current business that has seen material change due to ESG is Exxon. Engine One won at least two board seats (I don’t remember the specific number) and E1 is causing real change on ESG grounds.
Exxon electing activist board members is probably a good example. I remember reading about that. I believe the board over at Exxon is now 1/3 climate-centric/activist board members.
@@Econoboi
The only thing that may make it a little more challenging though is how current it is. It may be hard to get the evidence of the ESG impact of those directors because of how current this is
Ever since losing Polidice, I've been looking for another political/economic commentator. Sub coming in hot
Thank you!
I never knew the estate tax exemption in the US was so high, Jesus Christ! In my country, it's 50.000 USD, lol
estate taxes shouln't exist anyway
@@damiendiem I haven't read up on it enough, but I don't see the big downsides (nor the huge upsides). I've heard that it's bad for buisnesses since inheritors will have to sell stock, but I've also seen evidence showing that inherited buisness perform worse than those with outside leadership. One upside, Especially in a social democracy like mine, is that it counters inequality, though I don't think it does so very effectively. I'd probably be fine with replacing it with a high capital gains bracket or perhaps a higher land tax, but I honestly don't know.
@@EusebiusAT
Its easily by passed by using shell corporations and restructuring the assets into trusts.
The problem is the need to tax the "same capital" again and again through different means. If the wealth is held in shares those would already be under the purview of capital gains when realized. If the inheritors lives off the dividend instead of selling they would have to pay the dividend tax.
I think Econ did fine in the debate with Vaush. Rose Wrist did a good review and I largely agree with his position. I think, on the whole, it was a good conversation.
Now if you believe that neoclassical economics that may be completely unacceptable and hands may have to be thrown but you have a new sub (at least until you stan neoclassical economics ;) )
I love a good "fuck your face" dialog.
Awesome video, I had a bit of trepidation about universal education at the college level but hearing you speak about it made me more amicable to it. I have a question about NIT and welfare, however, you said that you would prefer a NIT of say 25-30K per year for lower income people over welfare since from a market standpoint it would be more efficient and that makes sense, so is it possible to have both welfare and a NIT of 25K per year? Would that have more significant drawbacks than pros?
I'm just not sure we'd need both. An NIT like I described would be fairly expensive, and part of the selling point of an NIT is the bureaucratic savings associated vs welfare.
@@Econoboi ahh ok ok thank you so much!
I am a Vaush fan and I can tell you economics is his weak point after watching him for a while now. I don't know why he keeps doing it, but he ends up walking himself into a position where he doesn't know what he is talking about. He did it pretty dramatically when he was commenting on Die Linke in the German elections and since I follow German politics, I knew when it was happening that he clearly had no idea. I also remember he said some pretty misinformed things about planned economies that didn't allow for nuance and I encouraged him to do a research stream on planned economies. He never did it.
Vaush is at his best when talking about social issues in the US, because that's the area that he knows what he's talking about.
I didn't agree with everything you said in that discussion but I think you came out looking better, so koodos. Ill certainty check out more of your work.
Vaush fan here too, I have similar feelings. I think Vaush should do a bit more listening to economists when discussing these issues with them.
I do feel like Vaush's criticisms on economics imperialism were on point, but otherwise he was pretty weak in that debate. Should have read more theory ;)
Everything is Vaush's weak point. It's hilarious how arrogant and condescending he always is while simultaneously being wrong about nearly everything.
Vaush is only good at one thing. Rethoric. Problem with that is Rethoric stops working as soon as you start talking to someone who actually knows his shit.
@@krispyasfk2567 "wrong about nearly everything", brutal attack on Destiny's positions.
I think what you're seeing is the beginnings of some cognitive dissonance in Vaush, over this particular area. When Vaush uses empirical data against Conservatives, there's a lot to draw on that will back his positions. But when he is specifically advocating for socialism, or against social democracy, he has a lot less to fall back on. Even when arguing for his favored mainstay of worker co-ops, there's not really enough solid data to go into battle with.
And you can see this in the shift in tone, he knows in these cases he's not particularly well armed (mainly because of the contrast for when he is sufficiently well armed), and he'll talk about wanting to do more research. But I think the problem is that, as a bright guy, subconsciously he knows that when he does more research...its going to move him away from his more socialist positions, not towards them
Thats why I think you see when he did his Econ research stream, he got drunk. I think on some level he already knows there isn't sufficient evidence to support some of his positions, but doesn't want to face it
This channel is my new shit.
I will take that as a compliment!
@@Econoboi I just really appreciate the depth and economic focused view. I feel like what Kraut does with geopolitics you do with Econ/Finance.
@@danieljager7419 Thank you!
With regard to the discussion around 1:15:04 about how to solve the issue of controlling tuition fee maximums, there's an easy solution the Dutch use. You just cap the legal amount of tuition fees a university is allowed to charge nationwide and let universities figure out how to deal with the budget that follows. If you really want you can also index that maximum fee and adapit it for every state based on the purchasing power (or some other prosperity-measuring number, I dunno what would work better) to account for differences in expensive or cheap states.
or you could have tuition free universities where the costs aren't passed onto the consumer through prices, but are funded through government taxation and borrowing. why means test when universal programs usually have lower price tags? Denmark literally pays people to go to college, and so could we, and the increase in skill competitiveness would be enough to justify that expenditure. the ROI is there, and it makes sense not only to figuratively invest in our student's future, but to financially incentivize individual students, rather to financially disincentivize them in the way that we are doing. but its not the students receiving the incentive, but the administrators getting crazy amounts of funds that they then vote on increasing admin wages while cutting faculty pay and increasing tuition. capping tuition fee's is a good thing, but why do we need to have private individual tuitions that remain in the private sphere, versus the benefits of having a public collective tuition paid by government taxation and borrowing?
@@ethanstump sure, that'd be a direction I want to go in too. But it's easier to keep the current infrastructure as a first step. Also, how do you pay for everyone and account for differences in quality of life as well as education per region? A 1000 dollars will get you a lot further in one place compared to the next. That would take a lot of work to figure out, and because the US is a federal state, you'd have to spend a lot more time figuring that out instead per state. A tuition cap naturally addresses many excesses in US colleges without the need for a lot of tailored efforts by states.
i agree that paying everyone to go to school may not completely be feasible in every area if you did it by state and local taxes, which is why the federal government would step in to subsidize students directly. also, if tuition is completely subsidized by the federal government, why would you need to adjust for education levels? if some schools are better than others, doesn't that mean people will move to the better schools, no longer needing to factor in the "cost"? means testing programs increases spending, not lowers it. universal programs are usually much cheaper to administrate than means tested programs. they are also more ineffective than universal programs, which means underclaiming, which would hurt skills training which is important for a competitive workforce, which is why Europe has a more educated workforce than the US. even a probusiness lens can justify subsidized education. which is why many companies already subsidize education for THEIR employees. and if universal programs lower spending, why not do it? www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/jan/14/means-testing-benefits-not-efficient-fair
or am i not understanding your argument?
@@ethanstump Okay so just because Harvard is free now, it's not suddenly open to all, right? There's differences in quality between institutions but the solution wouldn't be to ask everyone to move to the best places. It's to improve the quality of the lesser schools. I'm not sure how it works with this in the US, but you need to perform entry tests before certain programmes, I assume? So even if Harvard had infinite capacity, not everyone could go there anyway. I'm totally with you on universal programmes being the better option, but we can't factor out the states as an actor right? It seems fair to give them mechanisms by which to prioritize how to improve their state's education. Maybe that can be done without means testing, but it seems to make sense to me to enable states to provide students with an adjusted baseline level of support for that area.
i love your content dude
Thank you!
1:17:33 Land value taxes meet those criteria, that being easy to calculate (through a bunch of mechanisms), impossible to dodge (can't hide land). Plus, land value taxes are equitable since those who own the land with the greatest value are the richest. All while not having any deadweight loss.
The point about "matching your opponents tone" vs keeping a level head and being less animated is interesting. I think the best example of this was Vaush vs Perspective Philosophy. Vaush was incredibly out of his depth, so he went with the same strategy of aggression and mocking, but PP just kept his head and called out what he was doing as he did it and it made Vaush look absolutely terrible.
really interesting talk
Thanks!
So what if we did universal education but didn't add the accoutrements to it. Like you have to pay for a dorm, food, gym and so on.
Destiny says that capital gains tax rates should rise at around 17:10. Do you agree? If so, can you explain why (aren't they basically as bad as corporate taxes insofar as they distort decision-making)?
My man just out here doing musical blackface and thinkin' that's okay?
Corporation and individuals are the same. Humour me here.
Dividends,capital gains and estate tax tax should be 0%, BUT government should be progressively taxing the corporates for their gross profit just like individual income tax rates. Where gross profit includes the cost of goods and labour cost, it should not include any administrative overhead, expenditure on assets and any other expenditures.
Individual person is taxed for their gross profit (tax on income), not on profit after administrative cost (housing, food, health care) and reinvestment (education, transportation, clothes, household goods, recreation to unwind). It is impossible to determine which are legitimate administrative and reinvestment, for every individual. So, it is impossible to find net earnings after expenses.
Current taxation helps in rapidly building capital assets (amazon paid 0$ in corporate tax) but doesn't help in building a personal lifestyle for individuals. Like housing, food, healthcare, education and a healthy lifestyle, because people are taxed for their gross profits and companies are taxed for their earnings after all the expenses.
Should the government tax corporations from their gross profits?
PS: I understand this might slow down innovation, but this approach will provide an EGALITARIAN playing ground for poor people and the rich in building wealth.
What game is this?
Can Destiny please stop fucking talking about Marx, it physically hurts me how little he knows about the subject and makes it hard to watch his videos. I have read the entirety of Marx's Capital volume one and Marx ABSOLUTELY considered exploitation a moral wrong. He talked about it analytically, as in, how surplus value was extracted from surplus labor and expropriated, but he absolutely linked that to greed and considered it a moral wrong. Read chapter 10, especially section 3 and you will see that for yourself. Destiny CONSTANTLY rails on people when they talk about subjects they have no business discussing and I have to endure that nonsense from him when I just want him to stick to his surface level knowledge and dunk on idiots that know less. Either actually read his work or stay in your lane, otherwise he is being very hypocritical.
What game is he playing?
I'm a little confused by your claim that if the market for pharmaceuticals in the US was changed that it wouldn't affect pharmaceuticals worldwide. Doesn't every pharma company benefit from being able to sell in the US? That's the question.
If the US regulated down, or negotiated down, or went single payer and then started refusing to purchase certain expensive/new pharma and other medical technology, that would deprive these co's of the largest market in the world to recoup their R&D and regulatory costs, no?
nit: Microsoft and Google have insanely energy intensive business models: most of Microsoft's money is made on being a cloud provider.
4:13 that's how all communists do research
Can you please link Alex narasta Tucker Carlson interview
the offset on the audio is annoying me
I came here after just watching you on Destiny's channel, you did great and Vaush was a complete tool as usual. I'd say you've earned a sub but it's conditional. I'll only sub to you if you promise to stop smacking your lips or clicking your tongue or whatever tf you're doing before you start every sentence. IT WAS DRIVING ME MENTAL! other than that you're awesome lol.
The wealth tax to me isn’t so much about trying to stick it to wealthy individuals(though I’m certainly someone who believes billionaires should not exist), it’s more about preventing the rise of perpetually intergenerational aristocracy in the extreme. It’s about stopping the exponential increase of wealth by people and their children and grandchildren who subsequently inherit most of that incredible fortune, continuing an unjust stratification of human civilization and enabling them to have incredible influence over the lives of literally billions of other humans on our planet.
Wouldn't a estate tax make more sense for this purpose?
@@pellelindtner3488 Not enough. So much wealth can be accumulated in one person’s lifetime that that are able to turn their children into birthright lords during their lifetimes and into the future. I don’t want my son to be ruled over by Elon Musk’s children, and no one else should either.
23:55 not if you’re Joe Lieberman
So as an Arizonan, it sounds like I should get a coalition of lefties and progressives to promise Sinema they will love her unconditionally if she banks left?
algo algo algo algo
i've been thinking of a way to make a wealth tax simpler to implement.
since figuring out how much wealth everyone has is hard, we just let them figure it out themselves. but if they refuse to sell something for a value above the one they valued , we just charge them with tax evasion .
so let's say someone owns a factory that's worth 4 million. but they under-evaluate it. they claim it's worth only 2 million, in order to pay half the taxes on it. then if anyone offers to buy it from them for 3 mil, they have to accept or they go to prison.
how does it sound ?
Just tax land lmao
Any kind of system where you're forcing people to sell their property is going to be a total clusterfuck... in this system if I am a small business owner and I want to hold on to that business I'm forced to massively overreport the value and pay extra tax on it or risk having it bought out from under me by a larger business at any time.
Also, it's not practical to be constantly re-assessing the value of your property but if you don't and your business does really well for a couple of months and gains in value are you forced to sell it for the start-of-year price?
@@666lumberjack about your first point. why would you need to do it massively tho? whouldn't just do it a little? wouldn't that be enough? also, wouldn't everyone need to do it at least a little? this doesn't put you under any disadvantage against our competitors.
a business already does reports every quarters. it's already enough information in them to reevaluate the business. not hard.
@@aresgood1 I think large companies would be able to buy out all smaller competitors under this system, because it may be worth it for a large company to pay more to eliminate all competition, then just jack up prices afterward. The small business owners would have no choice to refuse the sale.
@@edwardcashman8723 after they jack up the prices you can just buy their factories.
Destiny: Is there any econ shit you think I am wrong about?
Destiny’s understanding of economic’s use of rationality is… not good
Am I the only one annoyed by the guy smacking his lips?
Apologies!
@@Econoboi all good man! My step son does it too, it’s like a nervous tick he has lol.
@@davidbritton5627 No worries bud, just gotta recognize that and move on! It's definitely an inadvertent thing for me.
Serious question: Why is the left hellbent on this spending bill? Surely printing trillions of dollars is not what this country needs right now?!
I disagree!
The way I see it, government not spending money productively is the same as a person sitting on a heap of cash and not investing it.
You can argue which spending programs have higher or lower ROI, which existing programs should be optimised/stopped, but saying we should stop/cut all spending is a braindead take by financially illiterate morons. If your concern is government being wasteful, inefficient, siphoning money into private pockets, the solution is STILL not stopping spending but advocating for more transparency laws, better funding of agencies tasked with investigating funds' mismanagement etc, tighter laws on how the government can spend money, funding more policy research in order to find out whic programs work as intended, which ones don't etc. In short, we should both be spending more and have better policies overseeing that spending. Very rarely do I see the right advocate for something substantive when it comes to the latter.
'Lower taxes, cut government spending' is just lazy pandering and virtue signalling to people who are illiterate about finance and policy.