Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Report: Bill Gates Could Be The World's First TRILLIONAIRE" video.

A lot of economic illiterates in this comment section . Bill Gates does not have that much money laying around, he is simply worth that much. Huge difference. Also, society does not value money, we value goods and services. He isn't just sitting on that money, if he did than he will be stupid as money has no value until it is spent. If he was just having billions sit in the bank or in a vault than he is not benefiting at all as it is not producing any good or service he can consume. This whole rant by Kyle just displays his economic illiteracy. I earn $21,000 a year, I am not in poverty. $30,000 a year is not living in poverty.
3
Except he does not have that much money, this is his net worth.
1
Except he doesn't have that much income. He is worth that much because of his assets.
1
You need to study history again. This country was founded on the idea of limited government. FDR also turned a depression into a recession. Since the 1930s we have been expanding the federal government creating a stronger centralized government which is what the founding fathers were against. The founding fathers were against a centralize government (like what was in England). During that time the colonies paid less taxes than citizens in England. The founding fathers just wanted a limited federal government.
1
The founding fathers were not left wing. They wanted a limited federal government, so much so that they wanted citizens to have access to guns to fight the government if they wanted. There wasn't any federal income, and when one was proposed to pay for the war of 1812 it was denied. Under FDR a recession became a depression. The only way we got out was because of the war because every other country was at war and we weren't. Afterwards every other country was rebuilding and we weren't so that gave us and economic edge. But let me ask you, if the founding fathers wanted equality so much, why did they not have any federal income taxes?
1
AdEPT, your examples are poor. In the 1600s we did not have the technology we have now thus everyone, including children at times, had to work extra hard to produce more. These days more kids are graduating high school, pursuing college, living with parent longer, starting families later and so on. The Ford Pinto example is poor. You know you are buying a less safe vehicle when you buy that as opposed to buying a Mack Pickup. Several private companies are working on the issue of climate change, including Exxon Mobil who help fund for Windmills at the San Gorgonio pass. There is a desire to have government. Thing is that we have to keep it as local as possible to control it and not allow it to become corrupt. When we lose control of government and it has power than it becomes corrupt .That happens with larger government.
1
Yes, people had to work harder. If you wanted to write a book in the past you had to write it by hand. Now we have computers where you can write more much faster. If you wanted to get someplace you either had to walk or use a horse (that required more maintenance). Now you can hop in a car and get someplace farther away in a shorter amount of time. Yes, people had to work harder in the past. "the gas tank blew up and eventually killed 500 people while the Ford motor corporation knew it was faulty, figured it was cheaper to pay out the life insurance claims than to recall the cars" As I said in my other comment, what if that extra part cost a million dollars? I bet you would agree with Ford now. You know you are getting a less safe vehicle when you buy a Ford Pinto, but the vehicle is also cheaper. I know that I can get a cheaper apartment in my city, but it will be in a place that is less safe and has more crime. I am willing to pay more for security. The same is with vehicles. You can easily criticize a company you have to part of thus you have nothing to lose in the actions they do. Much like the min. wage. You can easily push for an increase in the min. wage when you don't run a business yourself that is dependent on low skilled workers. When you have nothing to lose you can criticize. It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. "and please, with regard to climate change, until Exxon mobile, or any oil company admits that sustainables are the way of the future, and that they should be sued for causing the problem in the first place, not allowed to sue other countries whom block their precious pipelines through the TPP or another version of it, then we will have made some progress." Right now, especially in industry (such as scientific research), fossil fuels are the best source of energy we have. As smoking causing cancer. I feel there is a genetic side to it. Much like heart disease. While someone's diet can increase the chances, as a whole genetic do determine a lot as well.
1
Colin, he doesn't have that much money, that is his net worth. Also, if you took that money then what? What do you create with it? Money has no real value, only goods and services do.
1
Define "fair share".
1
To start I earn a low income because I am a PhD student in physical chemistry. The Ford Pinto example is a flawed example. Overall it was said that an extra part would have made is "safer". Milton Friedman was asked this question and he responded on what if that extra part cost a million dollars? Will people have criticized Ford at that point? We can make every car in society really safe and lower driving accidents by a lot if we lowered the speed limit across the board to 25 MPH, that includes highway. If we made every car out of solid steel and it weighed a few tons. That way if there were an accident it will be at a such a slow speed with heavy cars that essentially there will be no damage. But as a result people won't be able to move around as fast, and gas mileage will go up drastically both of which cause waste. That is the issue of the Ford Pinto. Ford felt the part was too expensive to put on the car. Others, who have no connection to the business, did not. But I bet they would if the part cost a million dollars. " You realize that putting money in the bank gives you return on investment via interest right? " Yes I do. "THis is how to make money 100. 1 billion in the bank at even only 1% is still 10 million a year to have fun with...see paris hilton etc." But not the only way. Also, why is money made? Because banks take that money and loan it out to people to start up a business or buy a home. And Paris Hilton is a poor example, she is a celebrity, Bill Gates invested his money. But, on the kids spending money, if they had no money management skills they would go bankrupt. Much like lottery winners have in the past. So it seems to me Paris Hilton does know what she is doing, or someone working for her. But, I personally don't care because I am not greedy like Kyle is. "Even as a philanthopist he is just one guy with not enough hours in the day to ensure his money is well spent and curing poverty" If you want to cut poverty you have to produce more goods and services. That is what society values. Money is worthless until it is invested to create a good and/or service that someone values. All that billions that supposedly exist in Gates possession can be given to the poor and they will not be better off as nothing was produced with that money. " Now you start seeing why our economy sucks....there arent enough people spending and injecting the economy" Our economy is struggling because we are not getting the most our of our resources, mainly from labor. The min. wage, for example, has priced certain workers out of the market so those workers are producing zero. We have people on welfare who are given money for doing nothing. We have people spending tens of thousands of dollars on worthless degrees such as gender studies or business as opposed to STEM degrees such as physics and engineering, degrees that lead to people producing wealth. You, like most socialists, simply see money. Money has no value, goods and services do. Money only obtains value when it is spent to produce, but at the very core people value goods and services. What we need to do is increase production, not spending because you can't consume what you don't produce.
1
Kevin, what you said about "a few people own half the world while everyone else starves" is deceptive. One, people are starving because of lack of resources in other parts of the country. Next, the reason for wealth inequality is because you have poor countries such as India and most of Africa where people have essentially zero wealth, and that is a large portion of the world. Then you have developed parts of the world such as the US where people have negative wealth due to loans, like me. A poor man in Ethiopia has more wealth than me because I have negative wealth while that man has no wealth. As for CEOs and everyone else. Everyone else has improved. I drive a better car than anyone in the 70s have driven for example, and I don't earn that much.
1
I know a lot about the Ford Pinto example. Answer me this, would you have agreed with Ford's decision if that extra part would have cost $100,000? As I said, we can make all cars extremely safe if we make them out of solid steal and limit their speed to 25 mph. What is the value of a human life? Think about that. Us as society are willing to lower the value of the human by allowing teens who can't even vote to drive on the freeway at 75 mph. Also, you take risks all the time as an individual in life. People knew a Ford Pinto was a less safe car, that happens. " Let me tell you one thing I KNOW about advanced degrees...you dont have one" What makes you think that? " that trickle down economics works" "Trickle down economics" is not a defined economic term. It is a political term used by politicians to appeal to emotions of economic illiterates.
1
I know about the Ford PInto. "that the FOrd Pinto case means all car companies MUST recall any cars that kill people now? " So every car than? Because every car in some way or another can kill someone. "Toyota's ability to invade the US market was thanks to FOrd and their Pinto!" Or maybe from their own choice. "THe Ford Pinto gas tank exploded at a predictable rate" When an accident happen. How about people drive better or buy a safer vehicle. "THe company KNEW it was going to kill a certain number of customers and they DIDN'T CARE" They cared, but this was at a time where cars were less safe across the board compared to now. Same with working conditions and other goods and services in the economy. A business will take actions to offer the safest product and the safest working conditions. But with limited technology they can only do so much without raising the price of the vehicle too much. Sure we have cars now that are safe, but technology has made is to those cars can be produced in high volume, thus they are cheap. Before 1977 deaths by car accidents were dropping at a steady rate. Some of that is due to better drivers, but also due to better cars. Businesses were already pushing for better cars. "It was that case that raised people's awareness that companies really dont care about human life" They do care. Why would you as a business kill off your source of money? "GOvernment sets regulations based on the people's wishes" Or the wishes of a business. Such as a larger business looking to squash a smaller competitor.
1
So now you are questioning my age? I can see the rabbit hole this is heading down. Yes, you can say all cars kill in some way or another. If people drove the Ford Pinto properly they would not have died. A box of metal going 75 MPH down the road is a dangerous machine. Why don't we just limit cars to go 25 MPH? There will be no car fatalities. "and enough people stopped buying FOrd cars" Hurray capitalism! You just made an argument of not having government. What happened with Ford was a miscalculation. They figured that the extra part was not necessary to make the car more expensive so they went without it. They were wrong. That happens in all businesses. With businesses, though, they get punished with less customers. With government when they always under budget they are never punished.
1
I know a lot about the Pinto case. Again, what if the part cost $100,000? Would you criticize Ford than? " BUt the case was so widely written about afterward, and the competing companies wanted to separate themselves form this practice, " Seems like capitalism wins in that case. " TOyota took over the market and actually made cars that not only dont blow up, but they recall them when they make a mistake" Hooray capitalism! Cars are much safer today, get better mileage and last longer because of capitalism, not because of regulations. What Ford did with the Pinto was say that it was cheaper not to put the extra part on there making the car more affordable. My car I own is not safer compared to a Mack pickup, but I get better mileage. It is a tradeoff. That is what it is all about. We can make every car safe by limiting their speeds to 25 MPH and making them as sturdy as a tank, but they will be expensive and inefficient. You yourself take risks in life feeling that benefits are worth it. People knew they were buying a less safe car in the Pinto just like I know I was with my car. You can''t blame that on Ford for giving the customers a cheap car. You always get what you pay for. I am highly educated and I can tell you aren't by you wanting to appeal to emotions. Yes, people died. People die on the road all the time, do we just ban driving than? People die from smoking, do we ban smoking? People die by drowning, do we ban swimming pools? Your argument is not strong here. Milton Friedman made great points on the Ford Pinto you can find on Youtube, I suggest you watch it.
1
Edward, wealth is a little more complicated than what you make it out to be. A man with no assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the US. An Ethiopian man who is poor has more wealth than me and I am typing you this message in a warm room, on a full stomach at a computer. Who is better off, that Ethiopian man or me? Obviously me. I have less wealth than that man because I have loans that exceed my assets and current income.
1