Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What Else Could A Tax Cut For The Richest 1% Buy?" video.

  1. Economics isn't that simple. Just spending that money to create "jobs" does not grow the economy. Wealth creation does that. Kyle's economic illiteracy is high in this one.
    6
  2. Louis Michael, your comment is based purely on emotions and has not data or facts attached to it.
    3
  3. Gilly, people like Kyle literally believe the government has a magic wand to just make things better. All we have to do it give it more tax money. He and his followers are delusional.
    3
  4. Joshua Rae " 1/ he said that the lower HALF of all Americans make 30k or less per year" That is a very deceptive stat as that includes people living in areas of low cost of living, teens working part time jobs, college students with roommates that are a few years away of getting a degree and more money, and married people with spouses that earn more. "At this point i am going to digress to youtuber @thebillis1 who suggested you go read a book." What book? Communist Manifesto? The Bible? You leftists are not too bright.
    2
  5. Isaac Wakefield, it isn't that simply. You have to get the food there and you have find a way to keep producing it. That costs a lot of money, much more than $30 million. You have to educated the people in those low income areas to properly grow food or you will have to pay people to start businesses there to provide food which will cost a lot. The UN's numbers are off. The UN is not a reliable source as it is he same source that came up with the "human rights" document that literally contradicts itself. Contrary to leftist belief the government does not have a magic wand.
    2
  6. Mango 4ttwo, no one is saying give money to the rich. They are saying they should keep what they earned as they can invest it.
    2
  7. The tax code needs to be simplified at the federal level. That is what they are pushing for. The left complains about how corporations are paying no taxes but then praise how there are deductions for lower income people. If you are going to allow deductions for lower income people than you are going to have to allow deductions for corporations.
    2
  8. " In fact, our middle class and the country's overall well-being was at it's highest when taxes were outrageous... Almost 80-90%" No one paid that high rate. For example, in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 and paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. Also, we did well during that time because after WWII every other country was rebuilding and we weren't. As for a simplified code, there is no one ideal tax code. It is complex with our complex economy. We are a nation of 320+ million people with varying economies and cultures. $200,000 in NYC is different than $200,000 in Iowa. At the federal level the best tax code is a flat tax with a consumption tax. Equal all across the nations. States can set different tax rates if they so desire as there are pros and cons to every system. "have to increase deductions for middle class and decrease deductions for corporations to yield more favorable results. " The economy is not that simple. You can have low tax rates along with high revenue. What is higher? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000? "Our highest tax bracket is 39.6% in the country, yet corporations only pay about 23-25% " I disagree with the corporate tax rate at the federal level as the federal government should not discourage companies from coming here. States, can. But when they leave a state they stay in the US. As for the tax bracket, I explained the flaws behind it with our different economies. "Fact is, higher tax rates regulate wealth inequality. " Wealth does not equal income. And wealth inequality is not necessarily bad. We have massive wealth inequality due to several people being in debt. That means we are so well off as a nation we allow people to take steps back before going forward. People, like me, have negative wealth due to loans where mine is a college loan. Others have home loans. As a whole the average home owner has 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth, but they are still well off. The Walton family have so much wealth purely because they own half of Walmart. " History has shown us a regulated economy produces far favorable results." Not really.
    2
  9. In a competitive market businesses will expand which creates more jobs. Also they will be looking to produce a better good and/or service which also requires more employees. The desire for better goods and services are there, there is no need to stimulate it. As for demand, if prices drop than demand goes up.
    2
  10. Rio Grande, you are correct on debt. My comment was more about that debt isn't always bad. At times people have to take a few steps back before going forward. "I rarely see Sanders (don't know Corbyn) speak about this phenomenon and the problems that the Federal Reserve creates in the economy. He doesn't seem to be very well acquainted with economics at all, let alone Austrian Business Cycle Theory." I try to be partisan and feel most of our politicians are intelligent. Bernie Sanders, though, I feel is an idiot. All he does is talk about taxing people and spending at the government. This is a guy who does not understand collateral. I wonder why he made it this far being as dumb as he is.
    2
  11. "trickle down economics" is not even an economic term. Saying socialism is broad compared to trickle down is simply not true as trickle down economics doesn't really cover anything, it is a talking point only to attack a right win tax plan which is as broad as it gets.
    1
  12. muninn odin, those countries have low productivity and small populations. Also, their culture accepts the lifestyle of high taxes. The US citizens won't.
    1
  13. "So your plan is to give more money to go sleep in some bank account to someone who already has an ungodly amount of money sleeping in a bank account? " Money in banks are loaned out to people to start businesses. "Want to tax the rich and the corporations to help the poorest and the middle class? Its been done, its called modern countries. " What nations? Other nations tax everyone at a high rate with high sales tax and property taxes. They don't just "tax the rich".
    1
  14. PragerU did a video on this. They are right that the rich pay the most. The challenging part is that tax cuts like these will always be larger for the rich because they pay more, but politically that is not a good slogan to run off of.
    1
  15. Nature Boy, wealth does not equal income. If you give me the Hope Diamond my wealth will be over $350 million. But my income will still barely break $1000.
    1
  16. "So what is it, do you think basically every functional country has a progressive income tax because all their (generally aristocratic) politicians want to spite the rich?" How many countries have over 100 million people? I see the advantages of a progressive tax, I personally want it done at the state level. At the federal level, with our diverse economy and society, it should be simplified.
    1
  17. " Of course the rich should be taxed more, that only makes sense in a society." How so? The rich have their own investment and lifestyles. They are different than yours but they have them. The rich are not just buying yachts. Their investment is in their careers that could be a business where someone who is poor is investing in simply their grocery bills. Different, but both are investing.
    1
  18. emperorj john, what CEOs? For which companies? You have to be more specific.
    1
  19. Police, infrastructure, judges and education are mainly paid for by local governments. Also, higher taxes does not mean higher revenue all the time.
    1
  20. "We pay the government to use the money to take care of us" Why? Because you can't do it yourself? And if you are going to do that at the federal level, don't complain when it becomes rich, powerful and corrupt. But besides that, who provides? You give the government money, now who provides those goods and services? That is the point. Giving more money to the government does not increase the number of doctors we have to provide more healthcare. It does not increase the number of teachers we have to offer more education. So who provides? This is why I say the left feels there is a magic wand. That somehow the government is going to increase the amount of goods and services we have if we just give it more money.
    1
  21. "What is government?Where is it?Who run the government?" You should know
    1
  22. Ok, the government are elected officials. The election process is all over the country where at the federal level states choose their representatives, but not other states. Thus, no matter how much you hate Ted Cruz, unless you are from Texas you can't vote for him. Same with me and Bernie Sanders. You have local governments which represent the people more as the people they influence are the only ones electing them. Where is it? Various levels of federal, state, and local. Each one has their respective jobs. Who runs it? Depends. At the federal level it is supposed to be the states. That is why nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a simple majority. At the state and local level it is the people. I can go on but that is a brief description. What's your point?
    1
  23. Louis Michael, the difference is that at the federal level that government is supposed to serve the states. Even though they have a military they can't enforce domestic law without the consent of the state. Nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a simple majority. And many federal government standards are not enforced such as CCSS and NGSS in education standards. States still set up their own education standards. At the state level the people make decisions. The more local government is the easier it is to control. Also, it is easier to see if you are getting your money's worth in government spending. As for the union, what keeps us united is the Constitution. That limits all governments and manages the states. We can travel from state to state without restrictions. No state government can deny our rights. So saying "eliminate the union" is not a smart idea.
    1
  24. In economics you have to get the best out of your resources in order to have the best growth possible. You get the most out of your resources when people obtain the most value possible. Now that is both objective and subjective. With objective at times it is clear. It would be a waste of resources to tell a group of physics grad students to go dig holes in the desert. For one, digging those holes adds no value. Next, their value is in the lab and doing research. Other times it is not clear so it become subjective. If I were to spend $400 at the strip club you will say that is a waste, but that is your opinion as I can feel it was worth it. It was my money and I spent is as I seemed fit. I would be a waste objectively if I can't pay rent, but assuming I could than whether or not it is a waste is subjective. With government spending how government should spend money and what programs it should run is subjective. It varies depending on the local economies, the society, and the challenges they face. Thus the more local the government is the more the people can see if they are getting their money's worth and thus we have strong economic growth. The objective part is clear. The subjective part isn't which is why more localized government is important.
    1
  25. " He's a right-wing "libertarian" troll that denies anthropogenic climate change. I exposed him yesterday for everyone to see." Well actually you didn't expose me. I said climate change is happening, I said man is playing a role purely based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What I also said is that we do not know how bad it is or how much man is playing a role. You claimed I was wrong and you said I should read the peer reviewed papers on the topic. I asked you which ones. I asked you where should I start reading as the topic is diverse. You did not give me any papers to read, any names to look up, any institutions to look at, etc. You simply ran away. I asked your for resources to read up on and you failed to give me any even though you said they exist in large amounts. So you can claim you "exposed" me, but you were the one who failed to provide any material to support your claim. In fact, one other person agreed with me by saying this "They're not capable of answering honestly to those questions that you prompted up. They will just run you around in circles. Like you said earlier, they're deeply impacted into their religion of big government."
    1
  26. Accelerationist, also, this is a discussion on taxes, not climate change. They are two different topics. My opinion on climate change does not correlate to my opinion on taxes, or my opinion on religion, guns, drugs, and other issues.
    1
  27. Accelerationist, I see you have given the typical links. Very predictable. 1. Skeptical Science has been debunked. It has been debunked by the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". I can get into details on Skeptical Sceince, but that book does it well enough. And I know you won't be able to debunk that book. 2. Again, I never denied that man did not cause climate change. By the 2nd law of thermodynamics we are adding entropy. So this source of yours supports exactly what I said. 3. The "consensus" was also debunked in that book I encourage you to read. One point is that they never ask if current climate change is bad. Another is that they never directly ask how much man is playing a role. Orekes study only looked at abstracts which do not get into the details of the study. As a person who have actually wrote peer reviewed papers I understand this. There as a nature paper that described that as well. In Bray's work they sampled around 500 scientists and 40% responded. And their work as only asking about how accurate the models are. It is not saying if climate change is bad. Doran's study simply asked "When compared to pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?" None of those are asking is climate change is bad. They had a response rate of 30%. Such a low response rate is sensitive to a bias for one. They ended up narrowing down the respondents to 79 overall, who remained unnamed so we can't double check their work. We just have to take their word for it. 4. Never heard of James Powell. I will pass on this one as I never read his work. 5. Same as before, read the book I pointed you to You, predictably, gave the same sources everyone else does. They are cherry picked. I have read many of those sources and feel the same. Again, on "consensus" study only looked at abstracts where several researchers who were references were insulted by the fact their work was misrepresented. Another "consensus" study submitted a poll of cherry picked scientists and received around a 30% response rate. What is 97% of 30%? Climate change is happening, it has been for over 4 billion years. Man is playing a role. The questions are is it even bad? And how much is man playing a role? You said there were many peer reviewed papers. You gave me no more than 20 from the usual sources I always receive. Climate science is a broad field that involves physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, atmospheric science, etc. You cited James Powell who is a ecologists. I am 100% sure he will not understand the complexity of photosynthesis at the quantum level that is being studied by Dr. Graham Fleming. I bring that up because we know very little about the ecosystem. We cannot even explain photosynthesis. We can't predict how it will evolve. The idea that current climate change is bad is a hard, religious like idea to take. Science is science. Science is not a religion. I suggest you actually read the references you post. I have. I suggest you study more science. I have. I suggest you look for new material and not recycle what every other climate change alarmist gives me. It doesn't work on me.
    1
  28. Accerlerationist, you are going to have to do better than that.
    1
  29. "That book has been debunked completely. It was pushed by the Heartland Institute. It's a well-known fraud" How is it a fraud? You have to give examples. Here we go again with you saying one thing with zero support. This is why I said you would not be able to debunk that book. Notices how with sources I actually read them, quoted them, and gave my opinion. You are just saying "it is a fraud" without supporting evidence. ". It can't possibly stack up against the list I gave. They're not cherry picked. These are literally hundreds of national academies of sciences and other scientific institutions from all over the world" That list you gave said man is contributing to climate change which I said I agreed with. Also, that book agrees as well. You would know that if you read it. "Of course you're going to pass because he's the one that has done some of the best meta-analyses" Based on what? I told you he is an ecologist. He does not understand the physics involved in climate change and the ecosystem. "Look at his meta-analyses about peer-reviewed papers on the subject. In the end that's all that matters. It isn't 97% or 99% of climate scientists that we're talking about, it's 97% or 99% of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, you idiot." I told you it was selected peer reviewed papers. He is citing the same thing Cook did. He did not look at all papers. "And read that last link. Don't mention that book. Read the link, because you clearly haven't." That book discussed the IPCC. Again, read the book. "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" "likely". You see that word. It doesn't say it is, it says "likely". This is where my scientific background puts me at an advantage. Man is playing a role. How much is the question. You will be hard pressed to find scientists to give a hard number or give a certainty. That is why they say "likely". Again, you need to try harder. I study science for a living. I understand how scientists think and the community. That word "likely" leaves doubt which is what science is driven off of. It is also common practice in science as scientists are not going to make the strong claim you are. Also, I did read your sources. I quoted them. I gave my intelligent analysis. You have not read the source you gave. You simply said "It was debunked!" with zero evidence. Again, try harder.
    1
  30. Accelerationist, you are making this way too easy on me. As I said, I have seen these sources. And as a scientists I know how to approach this topic.
    1
  31. " That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts," Answer this question please. Do you know what the abstract is in a peer reviewed paper? Your failure to answer this question means you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to peer reviewed papers.
    1
  32. Accelerationist, you see, I actually read your sources, quote them, and give my opinion. On this link I only have the abstract. I will try to look at it when I go to work at the university as on campus I have access to all peer reviewed papers. But it appears you have no clue what abstracts are. All you gave me was an abstract. Since you do now know what an abstract is in a peer reviewed paper it is clear you are unfit to discuss issues related to science. Also, since you cannot debunk the book I gave you shows you are unfit for this discussion. I am not saying that book has all the answers. I am not saying it is 100% right. With you we have to start with step one. That step is you actually reading that book. Until you read that book you are unfit for this issue. The reason why is because you can't think for yourself. You just go off of what others say. So no, you have not "put the nail in the coffin". All you have shown is you can't take on the challenge. You are a leftist sheep.
    1
  33. Accelerationist, you are making this way too easy for me. Don't you find it disturbing that you refuse to read other sources and refuse to think for yourself?
    1
  34. "Wrong again, The book is Koch Brothers propaganda. The Heartland Institute is a corporate lobby group pretending to be an independent think tank." And how does that make them wrong? What did they write that was wrong? You are pulling a logical fallacy. You have to give a reason why they are wrong. Until you do than what you say is meaningless. "Nope, the list says caused by, not contributing. " Let us break that down. You are right, it says "cause". It is a source from the CA government, not scientists but instead politicians. The worse part of climate change is that it has been politicize where people who are not scientist, like you, are ignorant on the issue. Next, when you say "cause' you are acting like a young earth theorist as you are literally saying that only man causes climate change Not solar patterns, not volcanic actions, not beavers building a dam, but only man. The climate only changed because of man. Despite the evidence saying that the climate has always changed according to you the earth is not 4 billion years old. "And the book does not debunk the consensus. Period. " Again, why not? Give me evidence. You just saying it is does not make it so. "He's a geologist." Ok, still lacks understanding of physics and chemistry that is related to climate change. "It's not just likely, it's extremely likely. I guess evolution is just likely, right? Lol!" Funny you brought up evolution because you clearly deny it. You say climate change is bad. I am saying it isn't as climate change has been a driving force in evolution for over billions of years. You are saying that the ecosystem can't evolve thus the current climate change is bad. So not only are you a young earth creationist, you also deny evolution. "Of course I know what an abstraction is. Do you? It's a brief summery but it has the conclusion in it." The key word is "brief". It does not give the details of the methods. It does not give the details of the finding. Science is about details. Science is a complex field. You can't just go off of the abstract. The abstract is there to give the reader a quick understanding if the paper is relevant to their work. For example, when I write papers I read an abstract to see if reading the paper is worth my time. If it is I read the entire paper and get the details. "hat's why they do it. 99.94% of the peer-reviewed papers he surveyed agrees that humans are causing global warming. Are you really that dense?" What papers? Why did he pick the papers he did? How did he come up with that conclusion? What exactly did those papers say? That is important. You see, unlike you I look for those detail. You just take things off of face value. I actually look deeper. "You're making it too easy for me. You can't think for yourself. You need a book by the Heartland Institute to think for you. Why don't you read all the books that support the consensus?" Actually I have read a lot of material on the subject. Noticed how I was quoting it? "I don't need a book to counter the highest standard in science. " Really? What is wrong with that book? They cite Nature and Science. It is written by three scientists. What is wrong with that book? Tell me. And just because something is from one source of a certain standard does not mean they can't be incorrect. Or most likely you do not know what they are actually saying. As in the "likely" part. "The fact that it was based on abstracts is not a counterargument, let alone a refutation." It is a counter argument. The abstract is a summary. Read the paper "Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review" By Park, Peacey and Munafo published in Nature. "Try harder. Or do your own research. Do your own meta-analysis and submit it to a credible journal. Otherwise shut the fuck up." Well I hit a nerve there. I will not do my own meta-analysis as I am busy doing my projects for my PhD. My project involves developing methods to study structure and dynamics of biological materials. The fact is, though, is that you refuse to actually read anything. You are giving me the same material that I have seen many times. You haven't even read your own sources.
    1
  35. Accelerationist, serious question. What does it feel like not to think on your own?
    1
  36. Accelerationist, the other problem of me doing my own meta analysis is that you won't read it. You will just say I am bias or corrupt or am some Koch brother clown or something like that. You are bias and you can't think for yourself.
    1
  37. Accelerationist, Exxon Mobil donated money to fund the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm. Anyway, again, why haven't you read the book? I read your sources, why haven't you read the book? But I will read your article "With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report" What makes it humorous? Already the author is setting the tone of his bias towards the book before they even open it. As I can see this person already was close minded. "As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions. Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field? " Listed on the cover. I guess this guy has a hard time reading? "When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? " Well, that is why you read the book. "These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of reputable climate scientists" What defines a "climate scientist"? That is a vague field. A physicist studying solar patterns is study something that influences the climate. Dr. Graham Flemming using 2D EV to study the physics of photosynthesis is contributing to climate science on the evolution side. In science it is a collective effort. " According to a literature search performed using the search engine SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global climate change or its implications in years." Again, what would be a "credible paper"? And why? He does not give his standards. "One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of people who have cited them is shockingly low. " Because they are both scientists who no longer do academic research. But if you want to play that game, Cook, whom you cited often, is not cited much. Using the comparison of Kevin Trenberth, John Cook has almost no citations. I smell a double standard here. "The Heartland publication falsely calls Dr. Oreskes a “non-scientist.” " Can't confirm they said that. But Dr. Oreskes does not do any formal research in science. From her website "Professor Oreskes’s research focuses on the earth and environmental sciences, with a particular interest in understanding scientific consensus and dissent. " Not data collection or physical explanation. Simply studying consensus and dissent. That is simply polling. I question her scientific background as well. But I am willing to give here and say sure, she is a scientist. However, the author of that article never gives a direct quote in that book or page number reference. I went looking and found it on page 11. Despite the "not a scientist" claim, they broke down how her work was not peer reviewed, something this author does not deny nor mention. Hmmmm..... It seems like our author is hiding things. "I wouldn’t disagree with either of their conclusions. The 97% of scientists that agree are more productive and younger than those who disagree. The references that the Heartland uses to support its conclusions are from its own website, from the Wall Street Journal, and other non-scientific outlets. Not very convincing" He said he does not disagree. But then he goes on to disagree? I am confused? "The Heartland document finally attacks the 2013 study by John Cook and colleagues of the scientific literature." I mentioned how Cook has low citations. " Just like before, in response to this the Heartland document cites no peer-reviewed scientific sources — just think-tank literature, websites, and blog posts." That is not true as I showed you that Nature paper they cited in their website. "I could go on," Oh please do because this is fun finding your double standards. He goes on stating facts and criticizes the book for no references while he gives none himself.
    1
  38. Accelerationist, you see what I did? I read the article, quoted it, and gave my intelligent opinion. Why do you refuse to read the book and come up with your own thoughts? "Are you really going to make me look up all their official statements? Because I'm going to embarrass you with a very long post if you do." Oh please do because this is fun. "Geology is a crucial part of climatology, and him being a geologist does not in the least disqualify him from doing credible meta-analyses." All science is physics and stamp collecting. He is a stamp collector. He can't explain anything physically which is crucial in understand the impact of climate change. "It's bad if it's artificial" How is it artificial? " 200 species going extinct every day " What? And what cities are drowning? "Yeah, you were quoting them and didn't offer a single refutation." Actually I refuted everything. "That paper was written by an economist and an experimental psychologist. Does it debunk the notion that peer-review is the highest scientific standard? I highly doubt it." Do you even know the impact factor of Nature? Wait, do you know what impact factor is? "I actually have read a lot of stuff on climate change. I frequently read Skeptical Science, which your book does not debunk. I also recommend potholer54. " So you read one sided articles. That is your problem. I suggest you fix it. I already criticized Cook. As for potholer54, he isn't even a scientist. He is a journalist. You refused to take that Nature paper seriously based on the fact that guy was not a scientist, but you take potholer54 seriously? Also, I had a long discussion with him as well. When I called him out on his tactics he ran away. One tactic is that he picks easy targets like in one he picks a 14 year old girl. Wow. What a challenge for him. And him trying to discredit PragerU was funny. He randomly picked one video that was an opinion video that was discussing religion. He disregards other videos with important information. But there is also a double standard. He showed a study from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. That university also teaches religion. So according to him they should not be taken seriously. BTW, I know PragerU is not accredited. I also do not agree with everything they say. I am just showing that potholer54 is a terrible source to go to with his condescending attitude. " And you're the one that's biased. I'm with hundreds of scientific organizations, and you're with the Heartland Institute" Actually I live in the scientific community. I am highly critical of that book. The point was that it was debunking the "consensus". Cook pushes that "consensus" where he is about as reliable as those authors of that book. I explained that in my other comment. My understanding of science has it where I know how scientists think and act and I know how science works. A geologist does not understand physics. They collect data and present a conclusion that is not set. A physicist does not know the hard numbers or correlations found by geologists. Science is a collective effort. There are not "experts" in climate science as that is a vague field.
    1
  39. Accelerationist, you problem here is that you are only looking at one side of the issue. You are only looking at one set of sources. You should read what the other side has to say. Seriously, why won't you read that book? Why do you allow other people to think for you? I am simply asking you to just read it. You can't criticize it unless you read it. Have you noticed how I read your sources and then criticize?
    1
  40. Here " Instead, they try to refute her with references to think-tank non-reviewed publications and websites." Where on that same page they cite a Nature paper. It is on page 11 https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf You are making this too easy.
    1
  41. Nicolas de Condorcet, " All science is physics and stamp collecting", that is from Ernest Rutherford and the statement is true. What is done in science? Data is collected to give supporting evidence to theories. What are theories? They are models designed to explain natural occurrences and predict future occurrences. They are models that can be flawed and in many cases are. The vast majority of those models are developed by physicists using the data collected. Now that does not mean the work that geologist does is meaningless, it is very important. I also never once said his work and papers are invalid. My point is that there is a lot we do not know about science. As I mentioned before, we do not know how photosynthesis works at the quantum level with quantum coherence. A group at my university researches something as simple as the acidity of alcohols. We have numerous models of water that all have their advantages and disadvantages. We do not even has an ideal model for water. For example, in one of my papers we used the Onsager model and CPCM model. That is just two of many. The problem we have here is that 1. These opinions are opinions are non-physicists who seem to lack the understanding of the complexity of science. While their work is important, they are geologist, ecologists, environmentalists who are not the ones developing theoretical models or are not the ones trying to understand this at the atomic level 2. We do not have a comparison, as in a control. We do not have another earth where we change the variables to see what happens. Thus we are going off of speculation and in reality going off of very little information data as a whole. I am not saying climate change isn't happening, it is. I am not saying man is not playing a role, it is. I am not denying the data. What I am saying is that in the field of science we know very little about the universe. We do not know how much man is playing a role as we do not have a comparison. We do not know if this is bad we we know very little about the ecosystem. I study science for a living, I understand the complexity.
    1
  42. "You conservatives are really illogical creatures." Actually I am a moderate, and my logic is spot on. As for Powell, I read his paper, he said this " In an interview on March 9, 2017, incoming EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt repeated a standard denier talking point" Pruitt never once denied climate change. I can discredit Powell on that sentence alone as he is not representing his opponent in a fair way. Also, reading his paper I see similar names. Cook, Oreskes, etc. There seems to be a collection of people only agreeing to this. He also cites Wikipedia. Really? On that one sentence and the citation of Wikipedia alone you can discredit him.
    1
  43. As for that list, they say "A list of scientific, engineering, and health organizations that have issued statements about human-caused climate change (as of January 2017)." By definition I have done that. Just releasing a statement is vague.
    1
  44. Accelerationist, your boy Powell cited Wikipedia in his paper. That alone makes his work questionable. He also called Pruitt a denier even though he never denied climate change. But hey, when you can't defeat your opponent just go ahead and present them in false way.
    1
  45. "I've been reading this conversation and it's a logical fallacy to attack that scientist personally instead of his paper. " Well, I did attack the paper. So what are your thoughts now? He cited Wikipedia. He also made comments such as "Reading thousands of titles and abstracts can become tiring" Poor excuse, due your job. You do know I read peer reviewed papers for a living? I can catch little details like these to easily discredit someone. After reading this paper I question his work.
    1
  46. Nicolas de Condorcet, there was a lot to say. Fact is Powell cited Wikipedia. He called Pruitt a denier when he never denied climate change. This conversation is over.
    1
  47. "You claim that you read peer-reviewed papers for a living, can you back that up with actual evidence? I'm not going to take your word for it. Demonstrate your credentials." Here is one paper I am reading now "Ballistic Energy Transport in Oligomers" Another "Vibrational energy redistribution and relaxation in the photoisomerization of cis-stibene" And this one "CN stretching vibration of 5-cyanotryptophan as an infrared probe of protein local environment: what determines its frequency" Those are papers I read this week. I read many weekly as it is required for my work. ". I actually read a large piece of the link you sent Accelerationist. If you're going to discredit Powell because he cites Wikipedia, then your book is 100% crap because it cites Monckton who's a paranoid lunatic with zero scientific credentials." I never said that book was 100% legit. I said it debunked the "consensus". To be 100% honest what I see are two sides just acting like fools. But yes, I feel that citing Lord Monckton is poor as I don't consider him to be legit. I am completely fair here. Just like I am fair in criticizing the "consensus" reports that are put out. " It's absolutely absurd to reject that list because a statement sounds vague. Do you have any idea how much like a creationist you sound? Do you have any who these organizations are? Their reputability and expertise far exceeds anything you've presented." The fact it is vague means a lot. In science you don't take a huge leap of faith as it is not a religion, it is science. You and Accelerationist are taking leaps of faith. You say I am acting like a "creationist" when in reality you are the one with the religious like belief on the topic. I am treating science like science. When someone like Pruitt questions the issue you call him a denier. You are treating your belief like a religion. Anyone who questions you in any way is all of a sudden a denier, just like anyone who questions a religion is condemned to go to hell.
    1
  48. I can see Accerlerationist and Nicolas de Condorcet have nothing else to say beyond the usual leftist talking points on this issue.
    1
  49. "Pruitt did deny it, and I told you how." No you didn't. He never denied climate change. "How do I know you really read those papers? I can cite papers all day. Demonstrate your credentials. Stop beating around the bush and show that you're legit. " They are all papers that are related to multi-dimensional spectroscopy. One is by the Hochstrasser who created 2D-IR. He was the first to publish a paper on it where Fayer from Standford published the first high impact paper. Rubstov worked for Hochstrasser as a post-doc where he cited Hochstrasser in the paper by Robstov I pointed you to. How much more do you want me to go? I can explain to you that there are two ways to plot 2D-IR plots. Fayer does one way and those who worked with Hochstrasser does another. They place the detection and excitation axis differently. I can go deeper but there comes a point I will be literally telling you my name where there are too many creeps on the internet. "You know what would debunk the consensus? A professional survey of climate scientists that contradicts the consensus. Where is that? Or how about a list of major scientific institutions like the one I gave you?" Two things. One, they showed how those "consensus" studies are vague and unreliable. For example, looking at abstracts does not give details on what the paper actually says. Anyway, I doubt you read the book. Where are they wrong? Tell me. They go through all the "consensus" studies and break them down. What is your rebuttal? Next, polling "scientists" is vague. In those consensus studies all they do is poll geologists and environmentalists. I do not see them polling physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. "Fully 87% of AAAS members say climate change is occurring due to human activity" Which I agree, but that is not the only reason. Nor are they saying to what degree. Pruitt said that as well. Man is contributing, but by how much? "Fully 77% of AAAS members say climate change is a very serious problem. " There is not reference there I am immediately dismissing this source. The Bray survey has been covered and is also not peer reviewed. You want something professional for me to present but you never present something yourself. You keep citing Cook, why? "If you would actually examine that list you would see that nothing there is vague" Actually it is. " There are tons of links with not only statements, but peer-reviewed literature. " Same thing as that book. "This is not a leap of faith" By scientists it isn't. That is why those polls have low response rates to begin with. Scientists are not taking leaps of faith, you are. " Again, you're using the same talking points as creationists. Major scientific institutions don't just say stuff like that. It's always backed up by evidence. " What? I find that funny as you are denying evolution and support young earth theory. See how easy it was to resort to name calling? " He isn't even a scientist." And neither are you, so what's your point? "You, and people like Pruitt, are treating man-made global warming as a religion. " Because we have doubt? Science is a culture a doubt. Richard Feynman said that. "You refuse to accept the consensus, like creationists on evolution or the age of the Earth." I question the "consensus" and realize that science is not ran on "consensus". It is ran on evidence and experiments. You are accepting the "consensus" like a religion. And people how are as extreme as you are deny evolution because you feel that climate change bad and the ecosystem won't evolve. Or you are a young earth creationist as you feel that only man causes climate and all the time before man did not exist.
    1
  50. Nicolas de Condorcet, here is your problem. You have such a strongly held, religious like belief in climate change that when someone comes up and questions if man is playing a major role or not, and question if it is even bad, you freak out. I never once said climate change wasn't happening, it is. I never once said man was not playing a role. They are. I question how much. I also question if it is even bad as the ecosystem has always evolved. My approach is 100% science. There are many scientists who agree with me. You have a handful on your sides, Cook, Powell....and that's about it. I can find more in my department that agree with me. Again, it is 1. Climate change is happening 2. Man is playing a role, but we do not know how much simply because we don't have a comparison or control 3. We cannot say if it is bad as the ecosystem has always evolved. The reason why I say people like you deny evolution because you must surely believe that the ecosystem does not evolve. The reason why I call you a young earth theorist is because you believe only man influences climate change thus only when man was on earth is when the climate changed, where there is evidence of it happening all throughout the existence of earth. Also, I feel we should do more research on it because unlike you I know that science is never settle.
    1
  51. Now take my last comment and compare what I am saying to what you are saying. I am not taking a leap of faith, I want more research to be done, I understand the complexity of science.
    1
  52. "By the way, don't bother responding because I'm not going to read your bullshit anymore. Now this conversation is really over" All I need to know. You are myopic and bias. You treat this issue like a religion, I treat it like science.
    1
  53. Joshua Rae, government programs are fine as long as they are ran locally. The more local government is the easier it is for the people to see if they are getting their money's worth. When you go from local to state and then state to federal it becomes a mess. This is why many push for a simplified federal tax code. Many feel that government is necessary and few feel that government spending and jobs are wasteful. They just want it to be localized.
    1
  54. "Every government program, whether local or federal, has it's positives and negatives." I agree. A lot of it is subjective which is why I support keeping it as local as possible.
    1
  55. "The federal government should just provide the funding to the local governments to do it so they don't rack up debts which they can't pay off." Or lower federal taxes so that the citizens have more money to consume as a lot of local taxes are consumption taxes. "A payroll tax cut would also be a good idea, since it is a tax on employment and thus disincentivizes it." The first thing we should remove, and should be partisan is removing the payroll tax. I would agree to raising the income tax if we remove the payroll tax.
    1
  56. "in a competitive market in which there is demand for the products." If people lack money than a business will have to drop prices in order to get customers. They will also find a way to increase productivity in order to create more which drives down prices. However, with you increasing demand by giving people money that does not mean there will be an increase in production. To give an example, the college loan program increase demand as college students were given money. But we lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, classrooms, etc. Thus colleges raised prices. " businesses invest if they think there is demand for more products. " They invest to beat competition. Why does Apple continue to release new iPhones? Because they know people want the next best phone. Many people cannot afford it, but they still create it. I also makes older models cheaper for others. And eventually that new iPhone will become cheaper. " And if prices fall, demand does not go up." That is not true. " Increasing demand is not buying a greater volume. it is buying a greater amount in dollars even without a change in price." You only do that with greater productivity. If people had more money but productivity does not increase than prices go up, period. We need to produce.
    1
  57. "That is not true. You're wrong. I tried to explain it before. Get an economics textbook. The first chapters will cover what is money, then go onto demand and supply curves." There are a lot of economic textbooks, which one? " Let us say. At a price of $10, you may get sales of 100 items for a normal product. !t $15 you get sales of 80 items, at $20 only 60 items. You then plot the graph with two axes: price and volume sales. But what you plot is a demand curve. " I agree, you raise the price you lower demand. From a company's perspective that is all they can control, the price. They can't control what the people actually demand. If consumers demand go up but not supply than prices will go up. " However, if you start getting 120 items sold at $10, and 100 items sold at $15, and 80 items sold at $20 - THAT is an increase in demand. This is early classes of economics." But if you can only produce 100 items, you will not sell 120 items, ever, until you find a way to produce 120 items. If you do not have the workers to do it than you won't be able to produce. Now you may say "hire more workers". But if there is simply not enough people willing to or able to work, than it won't get done. This is also taught in economics.
    1
  58. "You are confusing supply side and demand side economics. I refer to demand side, you to supply side. They are different things. " I know. " If people have more money, there will likely be an increase n demand. they have more money, so they have the opportunity to spend more, and probably will - at least to a degree = increased demand. " I agree. "If there are more customers with more money to spend, suppliers will want a piece of the action. Don;t confuse things. this is simple stuff." Well, it isn't that simple as you are confused. Yes, suppliers want a piece of the action. But again, if there isn't anyone to work or able to work to produce, than you won't get more supplies, thus prices go up. You have not accomplished anything. A reason why you will lack workers is that the normal consumer has more money, so why would they want to work more? I go back to the college tuition. We lack professors, TAs and tutors as we lack skilled workers to actually do those jobs. We lack dorms and classrooms as we simply can't build fast enough. The college loan program gave students money to spend on a college education but did not increase the supply of those goods and services I listed. Thus colleges raised tuition. Let us go with a simple model. Say you have a community of 10,000 people who work various jobs. One company sells widgets at 100 a day. Now you give a tax break to the middle class and raise taxes on that business owner. Now more people want widgets. But he only produces 100 a day. He can't sell more. So you say "hire more people". But why would anyone want to work another job? They have more money because of a tax break. And go to the extreme route of all 10,000 people have a job (excluding any children), there is no one left to hire. Thus he will raise prices. Now say instead you had a tax cut on the rich, or simply you don't raise their taxes at all. A rival company may see an opportunity to build a company there that produces a better widget, a widget 2. People will buy that instead so the other company has to lower their price so that people who could not afford the widget can, and that same company may have to push for an even better widget. And so on.
    1
  59. Mango 4ttwo, it comes down to you can't consume what you don't produce. You feel that increased demand will lead to increased production. That only occurs when companies have resources to invest. You also feel that demand needs to be stimulated which is also not true. A business will find a way to offer their product at a lower price and make it better when you have competition. This is why Walmart opens so many stores. In my city we have over 10 Walmarts. They can down size and remove many which will save them money. They don't as their business model is convenience.
    1
  60. Mango 4ttwo, what it comes down to is this. If consumers have more money but nothing to buy, they are not better off. If a company has money and invests in producing more things and better things, everyone is better off as goods and services will be better and cheaper.
    1
  61. "You take from the great army of unemployed." Many who are unemployed have little to no skills. Others are simply lazy. And what happens when you have no unemployed? But on the first part, people lack skills. As I showed with college tuition. Only 2 to 3 percent of the population has a PhD, and unemployment for them is less than 2%. Universities could not hire more so they raised tuition and increased classroom sizes essentially lowering the quality. "And many many people are not rich today. Many people out there are willing to work more" Only around 5% of the country work multiple jobs. There are many jobs available including jobs like substitute teaching. Besides that, why would they work more if they have more money thanks to the tax cuts? As for debt and banks, the problem there is that banks gave out bad loans, failed, but the government bailed them out. As for producing and not being able to work. There are millions of jobs that are not filled simply because people do not have the skills. Companies want to hire people but can't as they do not have a large pool to hire from. We have to push people to take on these jobs and gain these skills. That is how we grow. You want to bring the rich down and have it so people continue to work low skilled jobs.
    1
  62. "I certainly want to bring the rich down. They do not deserve the huge amount of wealth " Why not? Also, income is not the same as wealth. "And i certainly do not want people to continue in low skilled jobs. we should be training more." How? It seems like people do not have the desire to be trained. "And you dismiss the bank bailouts in a single sentence. not good enough. They should never have been bailed out" I agree 100%.
    1
  63. " It creates debt. Debt that many Americans - especially homeowners and the old with various assets assume is wealth." Debt is not bad. Debt shows that us as a society are so well off we can allow others to take a few steps back before going forward.
    1
  64. GrimZoso, he is losing viewers
    1
  65. Your Friendly Satanist, those individuals will invest money to generate wealth. What Kyle is talking about is arbitrarily giving money to people that might not create wealth. For example, giving money away in grants for college so someone can study Gender Studies will be a waste. Or spending money on "infrastructure" that we don't need or isn't built to last is a waste.
    1
  66. Nature Boy, under Reagan we had and economic boom.
    1
  67. "So buying yachts and more apartments and mansions will grow the economy?" Yep, apparently that is all rich people buy. They don't invest in a company to grow it, they just have stacks of cash like Scrooge McDuck does and buys yachts.
    1
  68. "Spending money to fix our crumbling infrastructure, yes does create jobs" But does it create wealth? Jobs are easy to create, wealth isn't. We can create many jobs by outlawing the tractor, now is that a solution to our economic problems? "That money earned by workers not only gets taxed but the workers spend it in the local economy, creating more wealth. " Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. You can't consume what you don't produce. "Look up the velocity of money. " Which both sides, supply side and demand side, support. What's your point?
    1
  69. "First of all spending money is never a waste as long as it stays in the country" Spending money can be wasteful. If you spend $100 on a textbook that can benefit you. If you spend $100 on a burnt copy of the movie Major Payne, that is a waste. Now expand that. When a company invests money that generates wealth that is beneficial. When the government takes that money and spends it on someone to pursue a Gender Studies degree, that is a waste. "when poor and middle class people have money there is FLOW because they need to buy food clothes rent cars houses videogames phones etc." But who produces those things? Businesses? They flow money as well. To think that the rich don't flow the money is simply not true. As for infrastructure, it seems like our government sucks at building infrastructure. Maybe someone else should.
    1
  70. "otherwise bill gates wouldn't have 90 billion in his pockets" He doesn't. No one has that much. They have that much in wealth, but wealth also includes assets. As for boom and bust cycles, they always happen.
    1
  71. "first of all how does outlawing the tractor create jobs?" More farming jobs. Someone has to plant the corn somehow. "and second of all if people spend then businesses will produce more to keep the supply up for the new demand" How? They can only produce so much. They will be limited in how much money they have to invest in new workers and machines because you tax it. And there is less desire to for middle and lower class people as you are just giving them money. Take this. Say you tax the rich and give it to 40% of the population to where they don't work. All the wealth for 100% of society is generated only by 60% of the population. 60% works not only for themselves but for the 40% who refuse to work. Now that is the extreme case, but that is the path you are going down. Just having people spend does nothing if nothing is being produced.
    1
  72. "Didn't you give credit to PragerU in another comment thread?" Yeah, what's the problem? They give good information at times. I don't agree with everything they say, but too many on here say "PragerU is stupid" but never give justification. "You give credit to an organization that believes that there's a war on Christmas and you call Kyle an idiot? " I don't believe there is a war on Christmas, and again, I don't agree with everything PragerU says. But if you want to be fair Kyle says a lot of wrong things as well. His recent video about that guy who did the shooting California for example. He said that guy was legally allowed to own his guns. That is not true. That guy also made two of his guns he used. Kyle got that whole story wrong, but I bet you won't call him out on it? I do, and I am willing to call out PragerU. I am fair in this.
    1
  73. "it's not wasteful because the money stays in the economy" Money has no value until it is invested to generate wealth. "sure that gender studies degree you got is useless to you but now your teacher has your money and he will use that to buy stuff essential and luxurious " And how much wealth was created with that money? Essentially none. That is the issue. That money has decreased in value. "also no....boom bust cycles don't happen all the time they happened EVERY SINGLE TIME after republican cut taxes and deregulated" A recession happened under Carter. "and yes assets are included in your wealth but even so with a conservative estimate we can say bill gates has 20 billion in wealth " So? If you give me the Hope Diamond I will have $350 million in wealth. What's your point? Gates has a lot of assets.
    1
  74. " yes business do flow money of course but and that's why I support helping small local businesses they flow WAY more money than big companies do" Both benefits society. Government should not be discriminating in that case.
    1
  75. "Yeah guys, lets raise middle class taxes and low income taxes to pay for the rich and they MIGHT create jobs. " I never had a poor person give me a job. Also, no one is saying raise taxes on the middle class. They are getting a tax decrease as well. The rich just get a bigger one because they have been paying most of the taxes. " You know it's not like these rich people already have massive wealth that they can use to create these jobs," Wealth is the perceived value of assets. You can't just use it to create jobs.
    1
  76. David Bartlett, the rich do not squander their wealth. They are rich for a reason. Also, just because someone is rich does not mean you are poor. People are poor only because they are poor.
    1
  77. "Your theory has been tried and tested over the last forty years, " Actually it hasn't. The idea of cutting the defense budget and increasing federal spending has for the past 50+ years. Defense spending has been dropping from 10% of GDP to 3% where the federal budget went from 14% of GDP after WWII to now 20%. " In those forty years, wages have not gone up at all with worker productivity and inflation," That is not true. First off, we created the payroll tax that hinder wage growth. But also goods and services have become better and cheaper over the years. A car now is much better and cheaper than 40 years ago. The areas of the market that has seen the largest increase in prices have been healthcare, college tuition, and housing. They are also the ones that have the most federal government influence in medicare and medicare and the payroll tax, college loan program, and the FHA and bank bailouts respectively. "Tell me what is more of a waste of money, funding that gender studies student or providing tax breaks for large corporations so they can stash their money or pay it out as dividends to millionaires, who put it in their bank accounts." Both are wasteful which is why I support a flat income tax and a consumption tax at the federal level. Don't tax corporations and they will stay. "Take a look at what happened after the Bush tax cuts." A lot happened. You can't just blame that on taxes. "Take a look at who ended up bailing those same people out when the market crashed in 2008." The government bailed them out.
    1
  78. fishlove69, why don't you ever call out Kyle on his lies and misinformation? Another was when he said in single payer healthcare systems no one dies on waiting lists. I easily found peer reviewed papers of them dying in Canada for waiting for "elective" heart surgery. If you are going to criticize PragerU you have to criticize Kyle. To me Kyle gets a lot more wrong than right.
    1
  79. "Tax cuts for the rich means someone else has to carry that burden. Guess who will? The middle class and poor." Not necessarily. If the government does not have enough money it can cut spending. Also, the idea is that "the rich" invest money to grow the economy which generates new revenue. Two examples. Simply what is larger? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? Also, if someone is rich takes that money and creates 300 jobs for people earning $50,000 a year, that is $15,000,000 of taxable income. "This is just redistributing wealth to the top 1%. It's called Reverse Robin Hood effect" Actually Robin Hood took money from the people in power, the kings and government, and gave it to the middle class and poor.
    1
  80. " It is not investment, it is consumption that grows the real economy and creates jobs" Invest generates wealth. Consumption does not a lot of times. "Without potential consumption, there is no investment, " True, but someone has to create. There is always wants for better goods. Why does Apple keep releasing new iPhones? Because people want it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it or not. If the people can't then the company will find a way to generate a lot and sell it at a cheaper price. "Give money to the rich and they will bring most of it to the bank, which invests 95% of it into the financial markets, which do not generate jobs" Banks use that money to loan out to people to invest in businesses. It just doesn't sit there. "every tax cuts and infrastructure spending of the past 50 years prove it." Not true. Varying results have occurred.
    1
  81. You can create jobs by outlawing the computer. Is that a solution?
    1