Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Trump Economics u0026 Russian Economics Versus Adam Smith" video.

  1. That only applies if government stays out of the way of business. If government is there to level the playing field and curb the excesses then it is useful. What contemporary governments have done is to interfere with business. They have become a part of the business. So, Adam Smith's logic does not apply. The alternative, by the way, is to have government run by lawyers. Is that really what you want. That is what we have now.
    4
  2.  @bobbafett1849  So, who bailed out the auto industry in the US? Obama. Are you accusing him of being influenced too much by corporations? Do you know why he did it? He did it to avoid massive job losses. Should he not have? Did Trump do anything like that in his first term? You need to look at facts, not slogans. You forget that old saying, the business of America is business. That is how you build up and spread around wealth.
    2
  3. By the way, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was one of the largest exporting nations in the world. I believe that the percentage of world trade originating in the US was higher than China's share today. After WWII the US share of world GDP was 50%. The US "bought" an alliance to counter the Soviet Union by opening up its markets to partners. That was a special case. The US has lower energy costs than any major developed economy. Many European companies have moved some operations to the US for this reason. There is every reason to expect it to have a favorable balance of trade. Consider the breadth of US industrial and technology activity compared to Russia and China. The whole comparative advantage argument assumes that the goods coming from places like China will be of similar quality. This is patently not the case. You may want to reconsider your argument.
    1
  4.  @johnridout6540  As far as I am aware it does. Check your sources.
    1
  5. By the way, the Amish voted overwhelmingly for Trump and there are claims that he won the state of Pennsylvania for him.
    1
  6.  @zeromodulus1679  I decidedly did not say that. You may need to work on your comprehension skills.
    1
  7.  @bobbafett1849  Yes, no that you mention it I remember that. See, it is a grand tradition.
    1
  8.  @bobbafett1849  What about the bailouts of the banks in the 2008 crisis? The problem is that there are often industries and businesses that, if they fail will have a detrimental effect of a lot of people. By the way, the government took an ownership in many of those financial institutions. They eventually unwound it and even made a little money. In the case of the car companies those companies went on to make good profits and pay taxes on their profits. So do their employees. So, what would you prefer? A lot of lives ruined an even bigger burden on the government (taxpayers) or corrective action.
    1
  9.  @terjeoseberg990  Of course not. That would be included in the "excesses" I talked about.
    1
  10.  @terjeoseberg990  It seems that you are advocating the government taking an stake in those homes. Did you think about that? Bailing those people out would not have solved the problem and would have cost more. It would also not have yielded back the small profit that bailing out the banks did. The problem was basically caused by Obama's policy of giving mortgages to people who would generally not qualify for them. For one thing the investment banks packaged those loans with high quality loans into CDOs. These were then traded as investment grade when they were not. We now have regulations to deal with that. I am in favor of such regulation. It contributes to the safety of the system.
    1
  11.  @terjeoseberg990  Regulations do not disappear. Generally, they become more rational. As for smog, see my response above.
    1
  12.  @terjeoseberg990  I assumed you meant something like that. Do you remember all the talk about moral hazard. There are a number of issues with your plan. First, you are transferring the risk from the banks to the taxpayers who don't have a problem with their mortgages. Second, those people who didn't really qualify for a loan in the first place are not likely to for a new loan. Making loans without credit checks is, frankly, bonkers. By the way, anyone who qualifies can refinance. As rates were coming down in the 1990s, I had neighbors who refinanced with fixed rate loans annually. I did it once.
    1
  13.  @JohnSmith-fl6qd  And I disagree with almost everything she says. So?
    1
  14.  @terjeoseberg990  Well, I would say the same about you. That is your opinion. Actually, the government would not get the growth in the investments. In addition, you missed what I said about many of those buyers being unqualified in the first place. What are the odds that things will really turn out differently the next time around? So, you are still looking at high default rates. And another thing. Have you ever wondered why something like that has never been tried before?
    1
  15.  @jt95124  There is some merit to what you are saying, but you seem to miss two points. The board of directors, and the decisions made by the board are critical to the business. The other thing you leave out as you talk about the similarities is the differences. Look, any complex human activity will have all the things you talk about. Government bureaucracy has been around since time immemorial. What you leave out goals, and responsibility. That is what "they" are getting at not the organizational structure.
    1