Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Прогрессивный налог: Притча о трёх братьях" video.

  1. Avron Fernandes Due to Harry killing of potential customers (his brother's kids) he has no business. He has charged so much in rent that nobody lives in his house thus he goes bankrupt. Harry screwed himself.
    13
  2. Avron Fernandes Actually the ACA has led to higher cost in healthcare. Once again the government comes in and makes it worse creating a growing income inequality problem.
    9
  3. Avron Fernandes And Tom and Dick took their kids to another hospital that was cheaper and gave the same quality of care. And Tom and Dick moved giving Harry no money in real estate. Tom and Dick moved to a low income area and then worked their way up while Harry's greed dug his own grave.
    8
  4. Avron Fernandes " Except that there weren't any cheaper treatments for the health conditions that Harry caused including lead poisoning that affected the entire population." In a competitive market there will be. And with today's technology Tom and Dick can easily move. Harry just chased out workers and thus he is in a deeper hole now.
    8
  5. rutger5000 The US healthcare system isn't a free market system though. We have socialized healthcare in several forms. Because of that we have high healthcare prices.
    4
  6. rutger5000 The care may be more affordable, but they end up paying in both time and lower quality of care. So in realty it isn't better.
    4
  7. troubledsole Stereotypes exist for a reason. Most people are poor because they are lazy. Most people are rich because they do work hard. That is the reality. You can find special cases but as a whole people who are poor are lazy and people who are rich did work hard. Go to a Title I school and look at how undisciplined those kids are. Their parents simply refuse to actually work at being parents and make their kids better. Sure their life is not good, but at least push your kid to do better. That is just one example of how those who are poor are typically lazy.
    3
  8. Avron Fernandes "Ends up like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc?" Countries of small populations. Not comparable to the US. "What does capitalism on it's own achieve? Somalia?" If you want to make radical comparisons I can bring up N. Korea or Cuba.
    3
  9. troubledsole I don't agree with bailouts, neither does this channel.
    2
  10. Teadon Urajh The US has arguably the best system in the world. When you break it down that is seen. That is especially amazing considering how the US has over 300 million people and Denmark, Finland and Sweden have populations that are smaller than most of our states.
    2
  11. troubledsole I an not a spokesperson but this channel is for a free market and the bailouts are not a part of the free market.
    2
  12. Teadon Urajh Population plays a large role. Less people means less politicians and thus less bureaucrats. With that things are able to get done faster and more efficiently. I always hate it when people try to compare use to other countries. You can't do that because the variables are too great. The economy is more about how people act than just pure numbers. Less people means a working system can be established easier.
    2
  13. Teadon Urajh "To be offensive and upfront about it, US is the retarded child in the room of politics. " How can you say that? We have over 300 million people. We have states that are larger than countries. We have 535 members in congress alone. The pure fact is that what works in Sweden won't work if they had over 300 million people. Take healthcare for example. When Ben Nelson voted against Obamacare he was criticized for being the only democrat at the time. He wanted healthcare reform but he didn't want to make his state broke. He was pushing for what his voters in Nebraska wanted. "More peoples simply means that it takes time to get everyone in line with what's decided, that's about it.  " Like herding cats, it is impossible at a point. On Obamacare, there are several democrats that stay far away from it and don't show complete support for it.
    2
  14. Teadon Urajh The US is not a free market to a high degree. I will admit it is more free than not, but not to a high degree. No economic system promises anything. At least with a free market you get growth to where people can be better off.
    1
  15. Teadon Urajh Government being involved in the market is a way for the people to control the market. The issue that arises is that the people also have to control government as well. I a country the size of the US you only do that with state rights which establishes smaller more local. Having too much government is just as bad as no government. I will never push for no government but we can't go to the other extreme either. Sweden is a poor example because it has less than 10 million people. The US has over 300 million. Just because something works in Sweden doesn't mean it will work in the US as a whole. In individuals states yes, but not the US. You want regulations in the market, I agree. What you also have to realize is that you need to control government. Without that you end up with a government that is not regulate so you just shifted the problem from one side to the other.
    1
  16. +poptart 523 Less populations means less politicians and thus less buearacracy and thus things get done easier. The founding fathers ran into this exact same problem which is why they created state rights. We had a hard time getting 60 senate democrats to agree to one type of healthcare reform bill.
    1
  17. +poptart 523 In most cases yes. If you can't at least find help then that is your fault.
    1
  18. haiggoh Working two jobs that have little to now skills isn't hard work. In some places like at Facebook for example they have to limit hours because people are literally overworking themselves. Fact is that most who are poor are lazy.
    1