Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Bulldozes Billionaires, Shifts Overton Window" video.

  1. That is a dumb response. That is similar to saying there shouldn't be anyone with a doctoral degree so we should cap education.
    4
  2.  @throwcongressoverboard5976  , capitalism is the best system we can use as it is the best and generally getting people what they want. There is a flaw though. That being it is the best at generally getting people what they want. For example, having a McDonalds on every street corner is not good for our obesity rate. The problem we have now is that capitalism has made our nation great with the things we have. However, due to our free market, and certain laws like freedom of speech, you have a lot of ignorance being spread out there where people simply don't know whole picture. That is why many oppose capitalism when in reality they support it.
    4
  3. Without Bezos those people wouldn't have jobs.
    3
  4.  @NoShillin365  , uh, not true. Bezos is not forcing anyone to work for him. He developed something and society valued it and bought his services. He became rich by actually giving people something.
    3
  5. Yep, he just repeated the same old talking point he always does. He didn't answer the question, he just went to a usual talking point.
    3
  6.  @throwcongressoverboard5976  , actually I blame the federal government taking over mental health with the passage of the Community Mental Health Act for the homeless problem. Also, Denmark is a capitalist nation. They have less regulations and more of a flat tax compared to the US. And the US does many things better than Denmark in healthcare such as higher survival rates of advanced illnesses.
    3
  7.  @hazukichanx408  , when a rival is bought up it is typically because it is smaller and can't compete due to expensive taxes and regulations by the government.
    2
  8.  @hazukichanx408  , so more government creating more barriers? So when government fails you just create more?
    2
  9.  @keffbarn  , and without Bezos there is no Amazon.
    2
  10.  @praxis4375  , Bezos made shopping easier for me. They serve more of a purpose than you do.
    2
  11.  @BladeoftheImmortal2005  , those aren't socialist nations. Besides, if you want to follow their model you will oppose Bernie's tax plan.
    2
  12.  @rsync9490  , Wolff is a Marxist. Also, he recently said some asinine things about the work force and payment.
    2
  13.  @rsync9490  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqKzTwWTAIo&t=604s Watch that video. At the 5:10 mark. Wolff is literally saying "you don't know something because you haven't taking a course from an angry Marxist".
    2
  14.  @rsync9490  , did you watch the video? Wolff is saying that people are underpaid because the company earns a profit off of them. The issue is that someone's labor has no inherit value. It is only worth something when someone else invests in it.
    2
  15.  @BladeoftheImmortal2005  , so Bernie wants to push for a flat tax and eliminate the wealth tax?
    2
  16.  @eila2088  , in Nordic nations their tax is more of a flat tax then we have. For example, our highest tax bracket if at $400,000 a year. In Sweden it is around $50,000 to $60,000. So yes, they have a flat tax compared to us. As a whole Sanders want Nordic level of spending with the US level of taxation.
    2
  17.  @BladeoftheImmortal2005  , according to the Tax Foundation Denmark's top tax rate, is applied to the US, will cover people making $50,000 or more. In the US our top tax bracket covers those making $400,000 or more. So yes, Denmark has more of a flat tax compared to the US as in their top tax bracket covers way more people.
    2
  18.  @kennethmcneil3478  , I love how I come here with actual citations from experts and just get dismisses. Far leftists is literally a religion at this point.
    2
  19.  @kennethmcneil3478  , when did you discredit those sources? Also, a lot of them are from peer reviewed journals. So if you can discredit them I recommend you write up a paper and publish it in one of those journals. With wage stagnation, it depends on what form of inflation you look at. If you use PCE, which the Federal Reserve also considers when making monetary policy, wages have outpaced inflation. So are you saying the Federal Reserve is not a credible source?
    2
  20.  @kennethmcneil3478  , peer reviewed by other experts in the field such as professors. Again, if you have evidence to counter those articles I recommend you write an article and get it published. On top of that you can use it for applying to grants. And some of the studies I posted are from Canada, for example I cite an article from the Canadian Journal of Cardiology. And I doubt you did an actual research paper as you have no idea how the peer reviewed process works. The Federal Reserve is a reliable source. Wage stagnation is a debatable issue. When you use only CPI inflation then yes, wages have been stagnant. But when you use PCE, GDP deflator, Boskin Commission adjusted CPI, factor in benefits, factor in the many flaws of CPI inflation, then wages have not been stagnant. It is safe to assume with you that you never considered any of those topics.
    2
  21.  @antediluvianatheist5262  , I never said it failed. On the large scale it will fail. On the small scale, such as at a state or local level, it will be fine as it is a community effort. On the large scale with a very diverse population it simply won't work. Look at Venezuela. A large country that tried socialism. And before you point to the Nordic nations they are not socialist nations, they are community effort. For example, they have more of a flat tax compared to the US. If we had the tax bracket Denmark has then our highest tax bracket will be around $50,000 to $60,000 a year. Instead it is at $400,000. Now why did Venezuela failed? They focused their finances on one resource, oil. And when that failed the country went under. In the Nordic nations they get their finances from the majority of the people. In the US people want to get it from mainly the rich who have the ability to move their assets to not be taxed. Going after the rich is simply one source like Venezuela and oil. So if we push to practice what Bernie wants it will fail.
    2
  22.    , uh, yes. Filter out any view point that will counter your belief. Keep shaping the facts around you world.
    1
  23. A wealth tax is asinine as a lot of wealth is not liquidated assets. You are taxing money that isn't even there.
    1
  24.  @keffbarn  , ok, but do we need people with PhDs in literature? Also, why don't we need billionaires?
    1
  25. @Richard Butt , except most "billionaires" don't have a billion dollars. Most of it is not liquidated. For example, Bezos is paid $80,000 a year, that's it. Most of his "billions" are in the shares of his company which are not consumables. So Bernie is literally lying to you at this point.
    1
  26.  @ousarlxsfjsbvbg8588  , and billionaires are useful. What's your point? Also, there are many with PhDs who are not useful. Take Ted Kaczynski for example. Also, billionaires don't actually have billions of dollars. Most of their "billions" are in assets such as shares of a company. That is not M1 money. And how do they exploit society? How did Bezos exploit society? By making shopping easier?
    1
  27.  GreenIdLady 1  , what? What is wrong with someone earning a million? Also, politicians are only bought when they have something to sell. You alleviate that reducing and restricting the powers of government. How did Bezos and the Waltons underpay? Also, they are the ones who created the jobs. What is the value of someone's labor? Nothing until someone invests in it. Your labor has no inherit value, same with everyone else. Most wealth they own is not consumable. Most they own are in shares of their company that, again, has no inherit value until someone invests in it.
    1
  28.  @keffbarn  , why do we need doctors? They provide us a service. Bezos is worth a billion because he made shopping easier.
    1
  29.  @f__kyoudegenerates  , I agree. They really think people have billions of dollars. They may have that in wealth, but the wealth they have is not M1 money and are not consumables. They literally want to tax something that does not exist.
    1
  30.  @Hydratank  , again, the shares are not consumables. They have a lot of value but it is not liquidated nor something you can consume. You can't tax it as it doesn't really exist.
    1
  31.  @keffbarn  , Bezos being the main shareholder of that company gives it a lot of value so investors invest.
    1
  32. @James Williams , you can't tax stocks as it isn't M1 cash. And why did he sell those stocks? And did he reinvest it in the company?
    1
  33.  @stormy5377  , you can't buy a state like that. Also, who cares?
    1
  34.  @stormy5377  , Bezos' wealth is in his shares.
    1
  35.  @Kraisedion  , he had the idea and pushed it. You talk about if he individually doing it is irrelevant as he came up with the idea. If it was so easy why didn't someone else do it?
    1
  36. @James Williams , selling shares is not that easy, what if no one wants to buy? That is why taxing stocks is not wise as it isn't actual liquidated money. If you tax it then the owners will have to somehow liquidated it which will actually cause more of an influx in money in the economy creating inflation. I feel taxing real estate is dumb as, once again, it isn't money. However, real estate is an actual consumable and property taxes are local anyways. But again, if they liquidated their stocks you will have an influx in money causing inflation.
    1
  37.  @stormy5377  , government bought it.
    1
  38.  GreenIdLady 1  , Bezos and the Waltons pay their workers what they can afford and the market rate.
    1
  39.  GreenIdLady 1  , they literally can't afford higher wages. That is a fact.
    1
  40.  Monjer Choudhury  , I disagree with property taxes, I stated that. What's your point? As for less educated, your rant show you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry and also an MBA student. So who is "less educated" now? So when you lose the argument you just go on an immature rant. Typical far leftist.
    1
  41.  Monjer Choudhury  , I admit that I am not an expert on issues like economics, that is why I read the opinions of experts and I present my sources here. I am also getting a MBA as well where economics is crucial in that field. In fact, I am required to take 2 economic base courses. So it isn't like I am completely clueless. I have argued many times that wealth inequality is arguably a good thing. The fact you refuse to engage in a conversation with me shows you have no actual argument.
    1
  42.  GreenIdLady 1  , those companies are corporations and have to cater to shareholders. Tell me why are you complaining about Walmart wages but not the wages of smaller retail stores like Raleys or Hy Vee?
    1
  43.  @Kraisedion  , Bezos came up with the idea of selling online and marketed it well. He expanded that with same day shipping, streaming, renting books, etc. As a whole it creates competition. The library in my city now offers online book rental as a result. Companies like Netflix and Hulu have to compete to provide a better product. Also, Amazon has the advantage of being able to sell things that are not really popular. I forgot the term but I will look for it in my MBA notes, but basically a brick and mortar place is limited in space and thus will sell popular items only. Amazon will be able to hold less popular items in a warehouse for people to buy. As for the company, who really generated that value? Him, the workers or the investors? With corporations you have to pay back the share holders as they did invest in the company and expect a return on it. You feel the employees developed the value but did they really? Compare Walmart to a company like Hy Vee. Both retail, both pay similar wages. Walmart is much larger because they are a corporation with share holders. Without the share holders Walmart will be the size of Hy Vee and exist mainly in AL, the state it originated from. So you have to understand that as well. With Amazon, he isn't paying just the workers but he is paying share holders as well.
    1
  44.  @iz2333  , you haven't met many people at a university. Typically, in academics, they are incredibly dense.
    1
  45.  @Kraisedion  , I went beyond that. He took it and expanded it and also marketed it well. You completely missed that part. Investors give money to the company so they can invest it and grow. Without investors a corporation will never grow to as large as it is thus that means less jobs.
    1
  46. @Meier Bram , what makes you think large companies don't spread profits equally? And assets are not M1 money, it is not liquidated. With your good example it is not food, clothes, etc. It is not an actual consumable. Stocks are not consumables.
    1
  47.  @Kraisedion  , again, he came up with the idea and marketed it. Bezos started his company in a garage. In the end someone has to be the leader and in charge. You are looking at the workers but the reality is this, labor has no inherit value. Your labor has no inherit value until someone is willing to invest in it. When a business invests in someone's labor they want to profit, just like you want to profit from your labor. It becomes a trade off. You are making it sound like the workers deserve something when in reality there is no inherit value in their labor.
    1
  48.  @Kraisedion  , also consider that Amazon operated at a loss for years and the employees still get paid. That is what it is like for many companies. Also consider the employees they do hire, train, and shortly quit. The company takes the loss. I worked at Amazon fulfillment at one time. That was actually normal. They hire someone, they get trained, and shortly quit. The company takes the loss.
    1
  49.  @Hydratank  , I don't support property taxes.
    1
  50.  @Kraisedion  ,what point am I missing? As an owner he creates zero value? How so? If someone buys a building and turns it into a restaurant they made that building valuable. If not that building just sits there. Same with labor. If an owner hires someone to work for them they have that worker's labor value. Labor has no inherit value. Your labor has no value until someone values it and is willing to pay for it, such as a company. Same with goods. A particular good has no inherit value unless consumers are willing to pay for it. There isn't some overseeing entity out there saying X workers are worth X and Y workers are worth Y. It comes down to many factors. But in the end of the day your labor is worth nothing until someone is willing to pay for it. Who is being exploited? You don't have to work for people. And again, if it weren't for that owner hiring an employee that employee will be earning zero. Slaves were forced to work. End employment? How? What is your solution? And the worker is profiting off of the owner. The owner gave them a wage for their labor.
    1
  51.  @Kraisedion  ,they do create value. Again, that building is not worth anything until the owner buys it and uses it for a business. He creates value in the labor he hires. Again, labor has no inherit value. He gives it value.
    1
  52. It is not so much that with regular people. Most regular people don't care. As long as they have a job they are fine. Bernie supporters don't understand the BS rich people deal with. When you put yourself in a position of success you so so much BS that it drives you crazy. I am in that as a PhD candidate. I see managers and professors in position of power that are incredibly asinine.
    1
  53. He didn't answer the question. Also, why stop at a billion? Why not a million? The fact that someone has a billion dollars (chances are they don't as most of their wealth is not liquidated), is irrelevant. Someone being rich does not mean someone else is poor.
    1
  54. Except he doesn't have $9 billion.
    1
  55.  @chunkymonkey435  , he doesn't have that much money.
    1
  56.  @desmondbrown5508  , well, they don't have to work for him. That is the reality.
    1
  57. Or more of socialism, on the large scale, doesn't work.
    1
  58.  @eduardotejerasosa8476  , ok, let us go with your stats. A lot of the homeless problem is due to mental health. The federal government, arguably, created that problem when they created the Community Mental Health Act. After passing that the federal government did not plan to take on such a large system and could not manage it and thus only half of the facilities were built where people with mental health issues did not see proper help. On medical bankruptcies that is arguably a myth as listed in this NEJM article entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" They say "But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." On the 40,000 deaths that is also arguable. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" the author writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality will live only 5 or 10 months. And as Prof. Richard Kronick wrote in his study entitled "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited" "The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." Long story short, Bernie is lying to you.
    1
  59.  @eduardotejerasosa8476  , CA is the largest state in the union and one of the most expensive one. It is a nice sample size. Also, that article is from the NEJM which is a peer reviewed journal with the highest impact factor. Do you understand impact factors when it comes to peer reviewed journals? I bet when you are in class and your instructor gives you a textbook you refuse to read it.
    1
  60.  @NonchalantWalrusParty  , so peer reviewed work by experts is propaganda? What do you call textbooks?
    1
  61.  @NonchalantWalrusParty  , but those are not economic papers but research papers on healthcare. And if they are wrong then lay out how. Again, they are published in the journal with the highest impact factor. Not saying they can't be wrong, but the standard is very high.
    1
  62.  @Hydratank  , the more an article is cited the more value it has. It is also higher to publish in journals of higher impact. As a person in the field I know this first hand. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMp1716604/suppl_file/nejmp1716604_disclosures.pdf That shows any special interest, including funding. If you publish in a journal and you receive funding from any place outside of your affiliation you have to list it.
    1
  63.  @Hydratank  , as a whole this whole "who funds them thing" is a joke. it says "we can't argue against them so we just dismiss them". If there were some outside source of funding with a conflict to the research published the article will get revoked immediately.
    1
  64.  @kennethmcneil3478  , when did you debunk the studies?
    1
  65.  @antediluvianatheist5262  , countries have different sizes. Nordic nations are smaller than many states. The larger the nation the more diversity there is and the less of a community feel there is. Thus socialism will fail. How else will Bernie get his money? Also, you haven't given me an example of a successful socialist country.
    1