Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Patrick Boyle" channel.

  1. "We shouldn't take Trump's proposal seriously because it just wouldn't work." Man, if only we lived in a world where that would ever even slow him down.
    1000
  2. Yeah, if they want to increase government efficiency, step one is nationalizing healthcare.
    116
  3.  @BoxdHound  Yes, but when has "certain to be ineffectual" ever proved to be a barrier to Trump? Remember the wall?
    75
  4.  @RaysNewLife  Just because something worked in the 1800s does not mean that it has anything to do with the modern economy. Are you suggesting we go back to cotton as the main economic driver? Or whale oil?
    40
  5.  @RaysNewLife  If you knew about the history of tariffs and free trade, then you would know why you're wrong. So do you know why you're wrong or not?
    31
  6. To prevent the domestic market from being undercut.
    22
  7.  @007kingifrit  Meanwhile, in the US, my parents have months of wait time for most doctors appointments, so they'd be much better off in Canada.
    22
  8. Deregulation increases government spending, because the less business is regulated, the more money the government has to spend cleaning up the messes they cause. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.
    21
  9.  @eastphiladelphia8134  It's essentially a religious argument. "God as all the things I like about Him and none of the bad things that He actually does/allows."
    19
  10.  @RaysNewLife  You were talking about tariffs, which are more outdated as a government funding mechanism than whale oil is.
    17
  11. The national emergency and security issue is that Donald Trump is President at the moment.
    16
  12.  @jamie59685  Why are all these people from foreign countries bragging about how they only have to wait 6 hours? We get it, the Us sucks at healthcare.
    16
  13. The real problem is that they are hard to modify. Most "bad" regulations don't need to be removed, they just need to be tweaked, with some portions removed or replaced with something more specific.
    15
  14. Yeah, the thing is, cities built up at a time without high speed transit, and were designed so that most people lived within walking distance of where they worked (if maybe a longer walk for poorer people). Then over time, trains and later cars allowed people to work in the city but live out in the country, which was more pleasant, and in response, cities had less and less affordable housing, to the point that many city centers have no housing at all, or at most luxury places that only CEOs can afford, and everyone else has to commute crazy distances. And then the next step was just to build offices out nearer the suburbs, where people could much more comfortably commute. So now there's no point to the city centers. I think cities need to fully reorganize so that businesses and homes for all scales of workers can live side by side, and nobody needs to commute more than a few subway stops and a short walk.
    15
  15. The point is that this will make America worse for your children.
    14
  16.  @anthonyreed480  It's the same in the US, only it takes longer.
    13
  17. The "consumability" of an EV battery is massively overblown though. They can last for decades. They do get lower ranges over time, but this happens very slowly, and a 20 year old EV that started with 300mi range will still have 100-200mi range on it, which is still plenty of a lot of drivers. People who need the maximum range can buy newer ones every 10 years or so, and sell the older ones off to people who make shorter trips.
    12
  18. I think that if one company did manage to dominate all the current affordable luxury brands, and then shifted them to a slightly higher price, it would be difficult for anyone to take their place. Lower tier companies would struggle to make a product that is considered as good as the others, and even if they did, the audience would view them as inferior. I think that the inevitable result would just be that the price of this market space would rise to that new level, and it could take a decade or more before anyone manages to nudge it back down. How much that bothers you is very subjective, but I think that would still be the reality.
    12
  19.  @importedmusic  The UK health system worked well, until Conservatives came in and started "making it more efficient" (ie, making it cheaper, but actually worse at getting its job done).
    12
  20.  @JustSomePerson8  People don't actually use them, outside of cartoons.
    11
  21. @ That helps, but is not a solution to the core problem.
    10
  22.  @fooboomoo  Well, you don't hire a consultancy firm to say "well that's a stupid idea." You hire them to say "well IF you're going to pursue this stupid idea, then I guess this is how you could do it. . ." They need to be productive!
    9
  23. People understand that, they just also understand that outside of a handful of industries that are already manufactured in the US, it is pointless to "re-domicle" manufacturing to the US, since it's impossible to produce those things in the US at a competitive price. It's wasting money to achieve a goal that there is no good reason to achieve.
    8
  24. I do think that it's fair to define a market based on the outcomes. If someone goes out looking for "product X" within a certain price range, and there is only one company that provides that product, then that would be a monopoly on that product, even if other, different products exist. If there are multiple providers of that product, and they consolidate into one, then that is reducing competition within that market. Now whether this is "too much" is more subjective. Also, it's fair to point out that a market like this one is not necessarily easy to shift. If the bags got more expensive, that does not mean that a different brand could easily fill the gap in the marketplace, because they would not only need to build up supply chains to produce those bags, but also design them, AND they would need to build brand recognition, which would be essential in the space. Basically, companies producing "bargain" bags at the moment would not have the wherewithal to launch an "affordable luxury" brand, and even if they managed it, the customers would be slow to accept them. That is a legitimate concern.
    8
  25.  @edumazieri  The difficulty in removing, or more importantly, tweaking regulations is that you need new votes to get them removed, and there are often not as many people interested in doing that (especially not when it would actually be a good idea to do it).
    7
  26.  @Robert-fx3ng  Yup, they don't understand, this is a grimdark setting.
    7
  27.  @HailAzathoth  No, he's right.
    7
  28.  @tinyleopard6741  I think you are being unrealistic as to how these markets work. If Apple's latest phone was 10% more expensive than the previous one, a lot of people would pay that, rather than do without. If every Android phone manufacturer that puts out "flagship their phones raised their own prices by 10%, then the market would pay that. When valid anti-trust situations can lead to outcomes like that, I think it's fair for the FTC to get involved.
    7
  29. Residential conversion sounds good, but it does take a lot of work, since you need to add in all sorts of plumbing and other features necessary for homes that a business does not need. Also lighting can be an issue, making sure that all the right rooms get windows when you have enclosed rooms rather than open plan offices. I do think it would be a good idea to make "partial conversions" though, more buildings in which a significant chunk of their floors are residential, inside an otherwise commercial building. Ideally these could even include affordable housing options for people who work inside the building itself, perhaps with subsidies from the city/state in the name of decreasing traffic.
    7
  30. Yeah, if Trump actually wanted to do some good, he could change US tax law so that no matter where an IT company hides their IP, they still have to pay the same tax to America. He won't though.
    7
  31. Of course states will tax EVs to pay for road maintenance costs. This is not some "sneaky gotcha" element, it's just basic economics. EVs will still be much cheaper to drive than gasoline cars.
    6
  32. The answer to "one of the two must be wrong," is " not really," because while in a world of perfect mathematics, it would be the case that only one is true, in the real world, which is far messier, systemic disruptions break things, even if the underlying changes would not, so it IS true that immigrants are not currently a problem and that removing them enmass would cause massive problems for everyone.
    6
  33. Yeah, but since most people don't travel long distances on any regular basis, that's why EVs are better for most drivers.
    6
  34. Sort of, but it's only half the story, because it doesn't go into why those changes are still a net positive. It doesn't explain the existing costs of not making these changes.
    6
  35.  @sharonritchie6365  The point though is that the amount you pay into taxes is a lot less than what Americans pay for private healthcare. A LOT less. Canada has lower avoidable death ratings, higher life expectancy, US has much lower number of physician visits per person, lower number of doctors per patient, I really can't find any ratings in which the US does better than Canada.
    6
  36. But on the bright side, stocks in tiny violins have shot way up.
    6
  37. That's what Trump's mom said to his dad.
    5
  38.  @itsallminor6133  No, he's right.
    5
  39.  @imacanoli897  Yup, all we can know for sure is that whatever he does will turn out badly, we just can't know what path that might be or how badly it will go.
    5
  40.  @fxsrider  But the thing is, big manufacturing jobs don't tend to take place in cities anymore, almost all city jobs are either white collar office jobs, or people servicing those people, so even though manufacturing can't "work from home," that doesn't mean much to cities, it stays out in the suburbs and beyond.
    5
  41. Rail can't reach everywhere, and EVs are a good way to bridge that gap.
    5
  42.  @JustSomePerson8  Lol.
    5
  43. That's what's known as "fraud."
    5
  44.  @tensevo  That's not what "rug pull" means, since everyone already knows that some form of road tax will arrive eventually. "Rug pulls" are where you trick people by claiming something that is not true.
    4
  45.  @johnarnold7984  Even if an EV is powered by a fossil fuel, it would still be more environmentally efficient than driving a gasoline car. More importantly, EVs are more flexible in where their power comes from, so as more and more power grid energy comes from renewable sources, more than more EVs will be powered off of them, and building out that EV infrastructure now is how we get to that future point. Also, nobody is intending for every driver to have an EV tomorrow, any more than it would have been possible to have millions of gas car drivers back before gas stations existed. It's a process. By the time every car on the road is an EV, the power grids will have been expanded to handle that base load, just as they have every decade since the invention of electric power.
    4
  46.  @zuggernautz  Yeah, the important thing is for the people who it would help to have that option available. There will always be outliers, there are still some places where people still use horses as their primary vehicle.
    4
  47. That's not what would happen though.
    4
  48.  @BarMagnet  They're already recycling EV batteries. Their core materials are entirely recyclable.
    4
  49. No, they're still cleaner, regardless of your energy source. More importantly, they can adapt to the cleaner energy sources, which ICE cars can't. Also, EVs have no trouble starting up at those temperatures, they just keep the batteries heated to a sufficient level to operate.
    4
  50.  @hagestad  The price of repairs on an EV are lower than on a gas car because they are much more reliable. These prices will come down even further as more and more mechanics shops become familiar with them, just as the maintenance costs on foreign cars came down over time. The cost of electricity is and always will be cheaper per mile than the cost of gasoline, no matter where you might be.
    4