Comments by "Errror42" (@nietur) on "VisualEconomik EN" channel.

  1. Military budget: $849.8 billion (7.8 B increase) 300 million dollars for teachers: But how is she going to finance that? 🤔🤔🤔
    27
  2. Without UBI, we would need unemployment benefits. But unemployment benefits compete with employment. The argument against UBI that is "People wouldn't work", true or not, suggests we should extort people to work with their basic needs not being met. And the same people who use this argument think people pursue higher salaries above basic needs. So wouldn't people still want to increase their disposable incomes / quality of life if their basic needs are met, therefore work?
    9
  3. There's this study going around on tiktok saying 30% of current production would be enough to give everyone on the planet a good living standard. Would love a video on that. It seemed to check out. People working less on UBI wouldn't be an issue that way either.
    8
  4. Less work isn't a terrible consequence 😐
    8
  5. It is a tax (that decreases economic efficiency and secures jobs), so same as every tax: It would decrease the budget deficit (if costs constant). You're just saying: "I don't want higher taxes". Well, money's gotta come from somewhere.
    5
  6. "He was going to be a noble price winner but he couldn't resist the salary of a concierge."
    5
  7. feel free to elaborate
    4
  8. They will increase the price of whatever the tariff is on. Increasing tariffs on produce when farms are doing good / producing at capacity, doesn't make sense and would be unpopular. Expect price increases on everything else with an international supply chain.
    4
  9. I really don't care how many of the viewers are subscribed.
    3
  10. a fictitious future in which we pay back everything
    3
  11. Yup, US consumers subsidize drug development for the rest of the world. + Ozempic is profitable enough to not need subsidies. Overpaying for a highly profitable drug and hoping the profit gets spent on new drugs instead of helping new drug development directly / making less profitable drugs more profitable.
    3
  12. when there are only 7 comments and none says who did the assembly line first
    3
  13. 13:30 such capitalistic propaganda
    3
  14. UBI is still the answer.
    2
  15. well, humans need not apply
    2
  16.  @DavidHalko  yeah, taxing labor is fining something good let's do a wealth tax and climate gases tax
    2
  17. Just that companies try to predict all the time.
    2
  18. Which becomes quite possible if you know the buying history of everyone over the last ten years + search history + every word ever written and media consumed
    2
  19.  @fistofdragony3213  $68 vs. $70
    2
  20. bruh
    2
  21. How do less interests for car loans increase the prices of used Honda Civics?
    2
  22.  @badluck5647  It doesn't make sense. Just price things so that almost all are sold. Where's the issue?
    2
  23. If AI had IG of 90, it could program a better AI which could program a better AI...
    2
  24.  @ajr993  Teachers are crucial. Following your own logic, this allows us to spend 850 billion on them. Crucial doesn't mean you have to spend that much. Several hundred of billions of which are how much profit and how much of that is enabled by the government spending? The industry can still produce weapons even if the state buys 0 of it. Yeah, we don't want TSMC to suddenly go boom. Does that justify 850 billion? Wouldn't 849.7 billion have the exact same effect? 850 billion also gives you a significant negotiating leverage. Compare to average worker with a degree instead. There's a shortage of teachers which justifies a higher price.
    2
  25. The goal is only to become as good as capitalism.
    1
  26.  @badluck5647  fairness
    1
  27. 5:38 Without patents, not even 25% would go to new drugs.
    1
  28. what about other capitalists, why you hating shareholders
    1
  29.  @chinesesparrows  I said it's a study. Studies can be shared anywhere, doesn't matter to the quality of the study.
    1
  30.  @AlessandroRodriguez  "good living standard" is defined in a certain way. It doesn't mean average US-American life.
    1
  31.  @jasonriddell  you saw a study that said that?
    1
  32.  @maximemeis2867  Bro... 1/3 of what YOU, yes YOU, produce, gets taken away from you and pays the yacht of someone else. How are they entitled to your wealth? Just by owning. By birth right.
    1
  33.  @AlessandroRodriguez  It is one standard. Arriving at this standard has different costs in different countries but the same cost if adjusted for PPP. I understand your point, I thought the same. It seems impossible to reach with just 30% of our current output.
    1
  34.  @maximemeis2867  You say no yet you have no clue what I'm referencing. Capital has a return. Workers pay this return. When someone gets dividends, that's the surplus value of your work. It is about 1/3, in the USA it's more than 40% at the moment. Again: Not talking about taxes. And no, handouts are just a small part of government spending... The 1/3 is the handouts you give to the rich unemployed. It is a birth right. Same thing as the king giving his wealth to his successor. They didn't produce it, you did. They gave the capital. They get money for owning, you get money for your time. You defend rich people as if they're better than us. Them, me, you, the third world country guy getting a dollar a day, all worth the same.
    1
  35.  @AlessandroRodriguez  In the study, they take all produced material and energy and compare it to the good living standard. There's no consideration of different currencies or cost of living needed. On first glance it seems to check out but it's still so unbelievable that I'd watch a deep-dive from someone on it.
    1
  36. like how they knew about climate change? like how Germany knew about the refugees long before?
    1
  37.  @JinKee  Laws still exist.
    1
  38. 12:29 Google, Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, LinkedIn, TikTok, Oracle, ...
    1
  39. 5:35 So what if the state did pay back the tax you paid? If that's the only argument against it, it's really weak. Just refund the taxes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    1
  40. HDDs instead of books as background is such a flex on paper as a data storage
    1
  41.  @AniMageNeBy Not if it happens voluntarily. Then it's a trade-off that the workers choose.
    1
  42. AI isn't even necessary. People can order the big things they want years in advance. You know the age of your car and your preferances for a new one and you can submit those. For everyday goods, AI is already much better than human planners. 14:15 That's wrong. Workers would get options they can choose from. Options with different salaries, locations, companies. They could get the option to study or move to get a better job.
    1
  43.  @DavidHalko  ??
    1
  44.  @badluck5647  It's possible to change prices. If one batch sells out too quickly, you raise the price. If you got too much stock, you lower the price. Over time you get closer to the right price. Dynamic pricing is another option. Capitalism, too has to guess.
    1
  45.  @badluck5647  This is not about the soviet union. A command economy does not have to have a five year plan and base everything on it.
    1
  46.  @badluck5647  Just not a five year plan that's about everything and set in stone. Companies in capitalism plan, too. A central organization that has more data and control has to be better at planning than one part of it.
    1
  47.  @badluck5647  What you say is that they get external suppliers, while in command economy, there's no external. But the equivalent in the command economy is not having no other suppliers. the equivalent would be to have excess supply. The additional external suppliers would be internal. Yes they totally can fire people. They can reduce work time, give an other more productive job or pay unemployment benefit.
    1
  48.  @badluck5647  Have you seen command economy by AI? Certainly not as simple / working by itself as capitalism. welp
    1
  49.  @anteeko  It's a simple rule that anyone can follow, including a central government.
    1
  50.  @anteeko  matching the price to the demand
    1