General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Out Of Touch Elites Laugh At Raising Taxes On The Ultra-Rich" video.

Fun fact, that prof. is not an economist.
5
@coolmodelguy , at the very core the political left is driven on emotions and the political right is driven off of facts and logic when it comes to economic issues. Not saying one side is better, we need both, but that is the reality. That is why AOC is pushing the narrative of what is morally correct as opposed to factually. Yes, they followed the tax guidelines which caused them to pay no taxes. That is why no one paid those high rates. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed. As for encouraging investment, people do that anyway. That is how the rich get rich.
5
He is correct. AOC is pushing for centralized control of the economy which never works.
4
@NinjaChris127 , the far left does not understand economics. They cherry pick information and try to create a narrative. Never mind that in 1967 there were 155 Americans that earned over $200,000 that year that paid $0 in federal taxes. The left creates this narrative that the 60s were a great economic time where there were rich people not paying any taxes. Kind of goes against their narrative.
4
@itsinmyvein , saying he is from MIT is pulling a logical fallacy. Does him being from MIT mean he understand quantum optics?
3
@OsefKincaid , I support the constitution. Limited federal government where the role is foreign affairs and commerce between states and giving the duties to the states.
3
@fgsaramago , I don't agree with AOC. I know what I am talking about.
3
@fgsaramago , so no counter argument?
3
Why? What he said was rather shallow. BTW, this professor is not even an economics professor.
2
@carminedauria-gupta2561 , really? I have been watching him for a long time and he ignores so many legit arguments on the right. Kyle is a radical leftist because he ignores any counter arguments on the right.
2
How are they out of touch?
2
@lumen8341 , because, compared to the people on this channel, I am correct.
2
You can't compare CEO pay to worker pay that easily. To start, workers are paid differently than from CEO. Next, you should look at CEO pay to the number of workers they are accountable for. If a CEO employs 100 people and that CEO earned $1,000,000 and then in 10 years employed 200 people and earned $1,500,000, sure their salary went up 50%, but they doubled the work force so they are getting paid less per person. You have to think about that. Also, read this https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
2
@itsinmyvein , I love how the far left tries to act so clever but in reality they are useful idiots. Remember, Jonathon Gruber was an MIT professor as well.
2
That professor studied "Managerial Economics" which is not even a part of the economics department. The prof. is not even listed as a prof. of the economics department.
2
@fgsaramago , uh, the Somalia argument. I never pushed for no government. You can have a free market with government involvement.
2
RD400D78 , depends on the topic. In science I am considering how I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. He does not even have an economics degree so I will say I am on par with him on economics as well. Just because he went to MIT does not mean he is a god.
2
@OsefKincaid , it is not an emotional response. It is a standard. It is a logical response as I have a standard where I place my ideas and arguments. When it comes to political issues I have a standard and logic behind that. That logic lies in the Constitution.
2
@fgsaramago , he is a successful business owner. What have you done?
2
@coolmodelguy , arguably wages have not been stagnant, it depends on what method of inflation you use. Read the following papers https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf This is where the left uses emotions. Yes, there is some data to suggest that wages have been stagnant, but there is also data to suggest it hasn't. The left just uses the data suggesting wages have been stagnant and then pushes an emotional argument on it. The right sees how complex these issues are and thus approach them as such.
2
@Julez60 , you can have a free market with government involvement.
2
@fgsaramago , I just provided an argument to someone talking about wage stagnation. You refuse to waste your time with me because you live in an echo chamber.
2
@robertpresley1503 , I just got done with my MBA course. Is that good enough for you?
2
Just because he is a professor does not mean he understands economics. Or if he does he is intelligent enough to be deceptive to useful idiots like Kyle.
1
@TheJamieRamone , what claim? No one paid those high taxes. Also, AOC would have to tax everyone at a higher rate to pay for her programs. She is not being honest. To add, during those times that guy cited we actually had less federal government as in less programs. No EPA, no OSHA, no department of ed., no medicare and medicaid, etc.
1
During that time the entire world was rebuilding so we had an economic advantage. Saying this guy is a "professor" does not mean what he says is gospel. Yes, he studied economics but there are one of two points here 1. He did not study economic history. He studied "Managerial Economics" meaning he most likely did not do in depth research in economic growth and causes. Just like someone who has a PhD in Organic Chemistry will not necessarily know about physical chemistry. or 2. He is saying deceptive points to fool useful idiots. Prof. Jonathan Gruber did the same thing with the ACA.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , no one paid those high taxes. After WWII the entire world was rebuilding and we weren't which created strong economic growth. Also, no on paid that high of a rate. In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year and paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed with a minimum tax. The rebuilding argument is relevant. We were number 1 in GDP because of our size. But the reality is that there are many factors at play here. It isn't just high tax rates. Also, that prof. is not even an economist.
1
@theHippiecat15 , our country had an economic advantage because we did not have to worry about rebuilding. We were ahead. It is like a race where we got a massive head start and other nations were left at the starting line. We had an advantage. That is why our economy was so strong. Other nations caught up because of their free market approach.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , again, we were up there because of our size. It is no secret that every nation was rebuilding after the war which gave us an advantage. This is something every economist understands.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , every economist understand that argument I put forth. Now do they agree? I can't say as I have never asked a large collection of economists. You look at GDP growth and we were well over 6% in the 60s. How often has that happened? Essentially never since. The reason is because every other nation caught up which slowed down our growth. You will not see vast decreases of GDP due to damage because they are still producing to a degree, but the fact is we say the some of the largest growth ever in the US during the 60s for a reason, it was because every other nation was rebuilding.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , how do you account for the large economic growth in the 60s that we have not seen since? That is the point, every other nation was rebuilding. Over time other nations caught up which slowed down our growth.
1
@syndoodlefs4791 , I am saying that it wasn't 70% or 90%. Was it 45%? I cannot say for sure, but I do know that essentially no one paid a 90% rate. We has stagflation in the late 60s and 70s. That was just as devastating as a recession. The new deal arguably caused the depression. What "reasonable taxes"? Stimulus programs? Which ones? Yes, we had strong unions, but that led to crony unionism. Lower regulations? Here is a correlation for you. In the 70s you had the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, the creation of OSHA, the EPA, the Department of Education, the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 which created a min. tax. It seems like the federal government expanded and now you are saying we have problems? There are several factors here. You are just spewing talking points and ignoring the complexity of the issue.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , what about European nations? Also, was China rebuilding? I agree that Russia was, but was China? You also have to understand those were big nations so when they were destroyed how much was actually destroyed? You have to consider that as well. There is more to the economy than just taxation, that is the issue. What you should also understand is that in the 50s and 60s many of the programs established by FDR were stripped. Also, in the 70s you saw the expansion of the federal government with the creation of the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the Community Mental Health Act (that was in 1963 but after the 50s) and so on. So there is that as well.
1
@syndoodlefs4791 , do you have a source showing the effective tax rate is 17%? Also, you have to understand the economy is vastly different now than it was in the 50s and 60s. No, you did not give a normal answer. You gave a simplified one. I never said the issue for the "steady decline" was social spending. There is the issue of the federal reserve not adjusting interest rates, and also there is the argument that wages have not been stagnant. There is a lot of data to suggest wages have not been stagnant since the 70s. I never said there was a downturn, you said that.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , also, was there really high taxation? Remember, essentially no one paid that high of a rate.
1
@syndoodlefs4791 , how is 70% "reasonable"? And why? FDR caused a depression. Many things from the New Deal was stopped after his death. The GI bill paid people who actually worked for the government so no, it was not a stimulus package. I support private unions, I just don't want them corrupting government just like I don't want businesses corrupting government. Unions are great when government is not involved on either side.
1
@kennet7837 , the recession started in 1929, the New Deal hindered growth causing the depression.
1
@syndoodlefs4791 , no one paid that high rate. FDR arguably created the recession. FDR's policies hindered investment which hindered growth. How many times has it took nearly 10 years to recover from a recession?
1
@lordmeandor2328 , but you have to considered that no one paid those high rates. Look at tax revenue as a percent of GDP then and compare it to now, it is essentially the same. So there were other factors at play.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , tax revenue as a percent of GDP is important as it shows how much of the money the federal government is controlling. It isn't as easy as revenue dropping when taxes drop. You can drop taxes and revenue can still go up. What is higher? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? Taxes do play a role. You keep saying it doesn't when it does. There are many factors as well but if you raise taxes to 90% where people who are rich are having a portion of their money taxed at 90% they will invest differently. Also, if the government is not spending money well than the economy will suffer. The fact remains that no one paid those high rates, so citing the 90% is irrelevant as it was something only on paper and was never paid. So no one paid that high rate.
1
@lordmeandor2328 , how much money the government controls is important if the government has waste or poor investment. One can argue that is the case in the US. Also, the USSR has a different culture than us where there is less freedom for the people.
1
@kennet7837 , giving people jobs does not mean creating wealth. If I gave you a job to dig and fill holes in the dessert how much wealth are you creating?
1
@kennet7837 , how many times has it took around 10 years to recover from a recession? Never with the exception of the one in 2007. There is a reason why. FDR's policies were bad.
1
@anthonymendez8571 , there is a lot of data to suggest that wages have outpaced inflation. What method of inflation are you talking about? CPI? GDP deflator? PCE? There is more than one method. As for productivity, wages have kept up. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". As for lowering CEO pay to raise workers' pay, mathematically that does not work. Take Walmart for example. If you were to take the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread it out to the 535,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. It is an issue of math. Cutting CEO pay will not increase the pay of workers a significant amount. As I said, if you look at the pay of CEO to the number of workers you will see the number is small. So no, there is no logic in your argument.
1
@progressivesupporter8126 , so listening to a counter argument with facts and logic is a waste of your time? Enjoy your echo chamber.
1
@moestietabarnak , that is an argument to be made. There is more to it than that, but one can look at it like that. You should also look at how much they benefit society. People rip on Bezos but he made shopping easier for many and saves money for many.
1
@mahal3680 , I work 60 hours a week to earn my PhD. I am fine financially.
1
@mrcasualgamerznull5476 , most people on welfare work part time or are temps. That is not Walmart's fault. Walmart does not have to give them a job. You blame Walmart but what about the people who simply don't work or simply refuse to work full time? Or what about those businesses who are well off that don't hire more? Why doesn't Costco hire more? Also, wealth does not equal income.
1
@mrcasualgamerznull5476 , Costco also hires far fewer employees. Costco is able to pay a higher wage because 1. They have less stores, many places don't even have a Costco. In my city I live closer to two Walmarts than I do a Costco 2. They have memberships 3. They are not 24 hours, they are limited in hours 4. They sell things in bulk So in fact Walmart and Costco run completely different businesses. Walmart is 24 hours, has more stores, has more employees, and does not sell in bulk. Costco has 214,000 employees, Walmart has over 2 million. So if you are one of the select, lucky few to get hired at Costco than yes, you will be paid more. But you have to get hired where Costco is selective. Why do you not complain about how few Costco hire? And again, Costco and Walmart are not similar companies, they differ in many ways.
1
@itsinmyvein , he isn't right though. He is being deceptive. One can easily argue that the fact that every nation was rebuilding after the war allowed us to be strong economically. Also, no on paid those high rates. If you look at MIT economics department website this guy is not listed.
1
@BericD , he got it i managerial economics from the management department, not the economics department. That is like having an mba means you took some economics courses but you did not formally study econ. But even at that, he can still be deceptive to fool useful idiots like Jonathan Gruber, another mit professor did. You should really think and not pull logical fallacies
1
@BericD , it ins't about understanding basic economics. What he is commenting on is way more complex. Why was the economy so strong in the 50s and 60s? He is saying because of the high tax rates. That is a very shallow comment for a anyone to make, especially for someone who supposedly has a degree in economics. There are many arguments against that. Here are some 1. No one paid that high rate. Joseph Barr complained to Congress that in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year and paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was established that placed a minimum on tax. 2. During that time the entire world was rebuilding so the US was ahead giving us an economic advantage. 3. During that time many government regulations and spending was being cut. In fact, in the late 60s and early 70s the federal government was expanded with OSHA, the EPA, Department of Ed, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. So one can argue limited federal government led to growth. And so on. This guy studied Managerial economics. Does he understand basic economics? Yes. But so do I through my MBA studies. I am required to take an economics course through the MBA program and I took two. I studied the Federal Reserve, different methods for measuring inflation, central banking in other nations, etc. Does that mean I am an expert in economics or the history of it? No. Or a better example. I am also pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. Does that mean I am an expert in synthetic chemistry? No. But I have a basic understanding of it. You say he has a basic understanding of economics and I will agree he does. But we are talking about a much more complex issue. From what he said there are one of two points here 1. He does not know what he is talking about or 2. He is being deceptive to fool useful idiots. You are pulling logical fallacies here, or you are just being foolish.
1
@H6enRal , I have, and I will again. 1. No one paid those high rates. Joseph Barr complained that in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year that paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was created to actually raise taxes on the rich. 2. During that time the entire world was rebuilding thus we had an economic advantage. This was actually covered in one of my economic courses I took for my MBA program. So is that professor wrong? Which is it? That was on a textbook. That was comment was by a professor who wrote a textbook. So are they wrong? 3. During that time the federal government was smaller. In the 60s and 70s we saw the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA, the department of Ed, etc. So in the 50s and early 60s the federal government was small. So yes, I have refuted what he said. There are other factors at play. As for the depression what arguable caused it was the Federal Reserve, even Ben Bernanke admitted that. But whatever, believe what you want to believe. Just ignore what other experts say and just follow this guy with his shallow comment.
1
@H6enRal , also, the only reason why I went after the "person's character" because people here are so fixated on the fact that he is an MIT professor as opposed to the entire argument. If that is all it takes to convince you than you live a very sad life.
1
@tuanjim799 , how?
1
@MachonyLeeoun , I don't go on TYT.
1
@BericD . do you know what Managerial Economics is? He did not study economics in depth. He studied management. You need to understand that. He did not study economics in depth. Compare it to me. I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. As such I took many physics classes such as E&M, Quantum, Stat Mech, and many chem courses such as organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, etc. Does that mean I know, in detail, about synthetic chemistry or plasma physics? No. Because my PhD is in physical chemistry particularly spectroscopy through non-linear effects. I have a basic understanding of those topics, but I am not an expert in them. Neither is this guy when it comes to economics. He is an expert in management. This is how desperate you guys are. You use Bill Nye the science guy to push the climate change issue and now you use a professor from MIT for economic issues and say "he is a professor from MIT" when he isn't even an economist. Is what he is saying wrong? Not really, but at the very least deceptive. There is a lot more to the economy than tax rates. Any honest economist will tell you that. There is the fact that no one paid those high rates. There is the fact that in the 50s and 60s the federal government was much smaller. There is the fact that the entire world was rebuilding giving us an economic edge. You did not counter anything you said. You simply said "he is a professor from MIT so he is correct". You know who else was a prof. from MIT and fooled the American people? Jonathan Gruber when he helped develop that ACA. This is why you call me a troll, you have no real counter argument to what I say. I broke down my reasoning and you just pulled a logical fallacy in saying "he is a professor from MIT". Is that all you have?
1
@Lies Bus , the war got us out of the depression. FDR arguably created the depression.
1
@learntospellpeople , so I am a useful idiot because question what people say?
1
@BericD , also, saying a "factual statement" is very vague. People can look at facts in many ways. Facts are essentially the bottom of Bloom's Taxonomy for a reason. Did what he say was factual? Yes. But there is way more to it than that. Compare it to another thing I know a lot about, sports. In the 90s there was a boom in home runs in the major leagues where players were hitting more home runs than ever. People blamed steroids. Were people taking steroids at that time? Yes. So there are two facts there. But in reality there were more factors at play. ESPN did an episode on that and explained that other factors played as well such as the expansion of teams leading to inferior pitchers pitching giving up more home runs, to more players lifting weights, to increased technology. Those are variables as well and facts as well. So when he said he made a factual statement you are being very shallow. These issues are far more complex than that. That is why you had to pull a logical fallacy and use the pigeon analogy to criticize me as opposed to countering any point I made. You simply said I am wrong where I broke down why I disagreed. Notice the difference between me and you?
1
@BericD , here, I will give you another example of a very intelligent man in Robert Reich being deceptive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s Did Robert Reich state a fact? Yes. Using CPI wages have stagnated. But there is a lot more to it than that. There are arguments of how CPI is not reliable or how PCE inflation shows that wages have grown where the Fed uses PCE to determine interest rates. Here is my suggestion to you, really think about these topics. You are being fooled, or you are following confirmation bias. Either one is simple minded. Just because someone has a PhD in MIT does not mean everything they say is gospel. In fact, someone that intelligent can be dangerous as well as they know how to be deceptive to ignorant people. Ever considered that?
1
@BericD , also, he is a prof. in the Management department, not economics department. If you really want to lower the bar on who an economist is than you have to include MBA professors as well. Let us look at the field he teaches http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/academic-groups/information-technology/courses-and-programs Wow, two economic course required just like I took. I guess they are all experts in economics with their vast amount of economic courses and research they have done.
1
@learntospellpeople , how? Simply saying "you are wrong" and lowering standards is not an argument.
1
@BaronSaturday66 , I gave a counter argument on the issue. You say he is correct, how? How can you ignore the other variables? And how am I making arguments against my own interest?
1
@BaronSaturday66 , you are ignoring other variables. And one can easily argue that supply side economics favors everyone. There are experts on both sides of the issue.
1
@X64813 , we still had busts. In the late 60s and 70s we had stagflation.
1
@gs8777 , in the management department, not the economics department.
1
@citigroup64 , Denmark also has around 5 million people.
1
@OsefKincaid , it is a rational argument as it is my standard. I have a standard in which I base my ideas on. I don't move the goal posts.
1
@OsefKincaid , what is your standard?
1
@OsefKincaid , what?
1
@OsefKincaid , explains what that means.
1
@OsefKincaid , you are talking about communism?
1
Ok, and? When you understand what wealth is you realize that is not bad. It is arguable that wealth inequality like that is good for the economy.
1