Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Richest 1% Grabbed 82% Of All Wealth Created In 2017" video.

Two things 1. "Trickle down economics" is not an economic term 2. I a lot of ways it does. I drive a better car than a rich person drove in the 60s
5
It doesn't work like that. If people were making $20/hr as a minimum and productivity stayed the same then prices will go up.
4
"You drive a better car then a rich person in the 60s because technology is better" Yes, and why? Because of motivation to innovate. "Explain to me why wages have been stagnant since the 80s and then you'll have a point." More immigrants entering the country and women entering the workforce, both who usually earn less. Also, when you account for prices wages have been going up. Cars, phones, TVs, ACs, etc. are all better and cheaper. Wage stagnation is a myth.
3
James Cooper, having 3 year olds walk around with computers supports my case. Homeless vets shows how our federal government rather cater to worthless bums as opposed to our vets.
3
Darksnovia, a lot of human need is subjective. Also, greed leads to innovation.
2
"You think 3 year olds with computers equals wealth?" Yes, they have more computing power than what put a man on the moon. That is how far we advanced in this society.
2
". US is worse off than Europe (context) and people are struggling to make ends meat (perception)." People in the US and Europe are on par with each other. Saying the US is worse off than Europe is not based on anything objectively. "Still there is no denying that healthcare system in the US is inept, for the lower classes at least," It has shortcomings, but so does every system. In the US I will admit it is not good for the lower class, as in the extreme poor. But in other countries it is not good for people with extreme cases as they lack in quality. On both situations you have to ask yourself who do you want to help? The poor who produce nothing or the person with the extreme situation that will be limited in productivity as well? It is a challenge every system faces. "Before I understand your opposition to wealth distribution, what exactly is your aim ? As in what do you hope to achieve, beyond principles." Ultimately I want to push for a better society. But a lot of times I want to drag people to the middle before we can start a conversation. Take this issue for example, people are crying about wealth inequality and about how bad it is. But when you look at the numbers and start to break them down and put them in perspective, wealth inequality is not always bad. In my opinion it is more good than bad. It comes down to people have to understand what wealth is and how it is created and defined. If you look at my situation I have negative wealth due to my massive student loans. But I am still fine overall. The Walton family owns a lot of wealth due to them owning half of Walmart meaning the stores, the trucks, the land, etc. That is why they have so much wealth, they own half of a multi-billion dollar company. If you were to give that company to anyone in these comment sections, including me, that company will decline in value a lot simply because we would not be able to handle the that situation. Very few can. Wealth isn't something finite, it changes.
2
Bill Anderson, the "working class" knows very little. They have no idea how to innovate and read the market. Those who are wealthy do.
2
Uh, it doesn't work like that because you are making the false assumption that wealth if finite when it isn't. You are also ignoring debt which plays a role in wealth.
2
" If wages had kept up with productivity over the past 30 years instead of stagnating ." You are comparing the overall productivity to the min. wage. You can't do that as the min. is the min. and productivity encompasses the entire economy. The average hourly earnings is around $24/hr which is inline with what you said. Also, productivity went up due to technology. Those who invested in it or developed it have seen a wage increase. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change. Along with that productivity has led to cheaper and better goods thus giving everyone a wage increase.
2
Darksnovia, I am a scientist. We are no where near colonizing the moon. That has nothing to do with capitalism and greed but the fact that is such an extreme situation it may take decades before we get there, if ever.
1
James Cooper, people are homeless for a reason and at times are beyond help. Here is the reality, while others are partying or playing video games and sleeping in, those rich individuals are finding ways to succeed. Give up your fun life and you will be near the top as well.
1
" yes immigration has an effect, but you can't deny that the system does a terrible job and insuring individual prosperity for all citizens, " How so? People have never had it better. We drive better cars, we have better entertainment centers. Food is very cheap these days. We have an obesity epidemic. I see very little to suggest things have not improved. "from the number of people dying from lack of healthcare to homelessness to the massive student loan debt." The people dying due to "lack of healthcare" is an unmeasurable stat as many variables are involved. Life expectancy is growing. As for student loan debt, I do say it contributes to the rising cost of tuition. But again, the fact that we can allow people to regress in society before moving forward shows how well off we are. Other nations cannot do that. We allow people to regress with no guarantee they can pay off their loan. I see that as as success. If you pursue the right degree loans will not be a problem. " American's quality if life can massively improve if effective wealth redistribution is undertaken." It will actually become worse. There is no such thing as wealth redistribution, only wealth destruction. Here is an example, say a wealthy man owned two homes, and a homeless man owned none. You say that isn't fair so you give that homeless man one of that wealthy man's home The homeless man, however, has no idea how to generate wealth and maintain a home. In 5 years the home you gave him is destroyed and he is homeless again. Meanwhile that wealthy man ended up buying a new home and now rents it out to people. Fact is some people have little idea and/or desire to develop a lot of wealth.
1
"It's slang for supply-side economics " It is not an economic term, you will not see it in any textbook. "which failed on most avenues" If you want to talk about "supply side" then you are wrong, advanced countries have used the free market. The best example is N. Korea vs S. Korea. S. Korea took a free market approach and became a powerhouse. All of history shows that a free market approach works wonders. Even those Nordic countries leftists praise do that. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc. have no min. wage and allow for unions to freely negotiate. "wages remained stagnant along with massive increase in the deficit. " The increase in deficit is due to government. Wage stagnation is a myth, that is why only extreme leftists point to it. "Increase in innovation has nothing to do with supply side economics." WHAT! Jonathan, you have said a lot of foolish things in your days, but this is the top. This has everything to do with supply side as investors have money to invest and innovate in a competitive market. "however wages have no increased " They have. What is you standard of "wages increase"? Is it the raw value or what you can purchase for your dollar? I use the latter. People have better cars, better entertainment centers, food is cheaper, homes and appliances are more energy efficient. The fact is that the vast majority of goods and services are much cheaper compared to 20 years ago. "and the supply side method heavily failed under Reagan." Why Reagan? Under him we had an economic boom? Why not Clinton, or Carter? Why not the democratic congress that we had under Reagan? " Having an increase in technology has nothing to do with trickle down economics." Oh, so those high speed computers just appeared out of thin air? " It has to do with progression of technology due to innovation which is inevitable as research is used on anything" It is not inevitable, why do many countries like N. Korea lack in advanced technology? You saying it is "inevitable" is not true. "Take a simple economics class if you don't understand the concepts." Actually I am taking a grad level economics course this semester for a graduate minor offered by my university. It is called "Financial and Monetary Economics" I love studying economics on the side so I figured I get credit for it and another certification. The book we are using is "The Financial System, Financial Regulation and Central Bank Policy"
1
Jonathan, I think I understand economics just fine. You are the one who feels that advancement in technology just appears out of thin air.
1
Nick Avick, what was wrong with what I said? I come with a counter point and no one can debunk what I am saying. One person just said that technological advancements were inevitable.
1
I see Jonathan deleted his comment like a coward.
1
"The market in the United States and in multiple other countries have grown using Different methods from supply side economics, such as keynesian economics" I would agree, but successful countries lean towards supply side and allowing the free market to reign. " N korea has failed to thrive since the nation is a full dictatorship with no real system in place except a military which is progressing as shown with nuclear tests" They failed because they pushed for communist and at that point the only jobs they can create are the military. "You are arguing a free market approach which can be driven through a multitude of economic policies, not just supply side economics. " The free market allows consumer, who are also investors, spend freely. It allows people to invest their money as they seem fit. That leads to innovation and better technology. People demand better things and businesses, out of competition, offer it. If people are not allowed to spend freely then they will only demand the essentials to survive. Supply side has lead to more inventions. "Again take a economics course, wage stagnation is not a myth taking into account inflation." Uh, as i told you I am registered for an economics course. Wage stagnation is a myth. Look up the videos by Learn Liberty entitled "The Real "Truth About the Economy." Have Wages Stagnaged?" And "Is the Cost of Living Really Rising?" At the very least, the idea of wage stagnation is debatable. As shown there are multiple ways to calculate inflation. It seems like you need to study economics. "No, capitalism which allows for innovation in the market place is what leads to a competitive market. How we arrive there, through a variety of economic models has little to do with innovation in itself. " The only reason why people innovate is due to competition and capitalism. Why work hard and be creative if you going to lose your money? "Essentially you are saying free market enterprise and supply side economics are the same thing which is nothing of the sort." They are very similar as the free market allows for people and investors to freely invest their money. As long as people who earned their money have it to spend that will lead to growth. People who earned their money earned it by developing wealth. They worked. That is the free market. "Investment in ideas has occurred before supply side economics and would continue through all different assortment of economic policies, such as keynesian economics." Not true because with Keynesian economics it runs on the idea of just giving money to people who never earned it. It lowers productivity and thus wealth creation. Investors cannot invest and thus new innovation does not occur. That is why it never works. Our two biggest recessions took so long to recover from because we were practicing that model. "Innovation or progression of technology is NOT the same thing as wages increasing." Yes it is, I can purchase more for my dollar. If something costs $10 an hour to make but after technology it now costs $5/hr to make, that item will be cheaper, period. "Read actual studies from economists and analysts who are in the field. " Like the two videos I pointed you to? There are many economists on this issue that will agree with me. So I do listen to actual economists. I listen to many and not cherry picked ones like you do. "As I pointed out, this thought process was heavily attempted under reagan which did have job growth but wages which he assumed would increased, remained stagnant. " Economic boom, people were living better lives. I see no problems. "Progression of technology has NOTHING to do with wages remaining stagnant. Seriously, do I have to explain every difference to you? " Oh, please do, this will be great. The fact that my car is cheaper, and gets better MPG means nothing to my overall income? It does not mean I have more money to be spent elsewhere? "It's quite apparent you are not in a grad level economics course. You literally are arguing wage increase with the idea of progression of technology." How is it obvious? You are saying that me being able to buy a car that lasts longer, and gets better MPG has zero influence on my overall income? "Assuming you are barely taking the course, it's an introduction course and has nothing to do with the topic at hand" It is a grad level course. I have no clue where you found that as I am sure many universities offer courses of similar names. But this is a grad level course. " Do you have some kind of mental deficit? Not only did you provide a class that doesn't actually lend weight to the argument, it's shown as an undergrad course" Funny as it is a grad level course. "Again, please get an education and actually understand when something is applicable." Yep, apparently me having a car that lasts longer means I have less money, gotcha. "You know how I posted 3 different links showing how what you called was a "leftist myth" is true? " And I pointed you to two professors that say it is a myth. What's your point? I can find more if you want.
1
Jonathan, you have given me nothing but leftist talking points on wage stagnation. Again, explain to me how having a better car, that last longer, and gives me better gas mileage means I am worse off financially? Please explain that to me, this will be great. Also, again, you do not have to believe me on my course work, it does not make any difference in my career. I just paid for my textbooks.
1
James Cooper, the N. Korea vs S. Korea example is spot on. Why? Because one went the route of free market and supply side and the other went the route of move government. S. Korea went to supply side and a free market where investors invest and workers who earned their money were able to buy. That is why, over time, they became successful. Now granted there is more to it, but the idea that supply side does not work is simply not true as every developed nation practices it in one way or another.
1
Nick Avick, when have I ever strawman? Also, I never ignored the argument. I have debated Jonathan many times and he has failed to deliver. He just said that having better technology is not equal to a wage increase. So apparently me driving a car that gets better gas mileage does nothing to raise my income.
1
Jonathan, if I linked you my peer reviewed papers, and the work and success I have, you will be silent as by what you claim I am a nobody. Meanwhile I have had a lot of success. I refuse to as there are too many creeps on these comment sections. I just get enjoyment by your childish insults of you thinking who I am. I have to write two papers in my class, I will let you know how I do. I have taken two other courses and so far have received A in both of them.
1
James Cooper, I did say other factors did play. But you can also look at Venezuela as well, or Cuba. Nations that have pushed for supply side have been successful. Despite what Bernie Sanders said those Nordic countries are not socialist. People do have to earn their money there.
1
"That car has lost value" Yes, I agree. But consider this, what car is cheaper? Car A: $10,000 with 15 MPG and lasts only 120,000 miles Car B: $15,000 with 30 MPG and lasts 200,000 miles Over time, which car is better and can save me money in the long run? Car B as I will be cutting my gas price in half and it last 80,000 miles more. Now you can split hairs and factor in property taxes, but that is an issue of government.
1
This is usually the time people fun away as they cannot debate me. But consider this when talking about wealth. Jeff Bezos earns a salary of around $81,000 a year. That's it. He is worth millions as he owns a lot of stocks from Amazon, a successful company.
1
Jack Ban, look at Jeff Bezos, he is very wealthy. Why? Because he owns most of Amazon, a company that makes shopping easier for many people. How many resources does Amazon uses up? Think about that.
1
"In the nordic countries there are massive amounts of wealth redistribution going on" Not true which is why Denmark told Bernie to stop calling them socialists. They have high taxation, but you still have to earn the money. The high taxation is just them using government as a means to run certain services. You can do that with a smaller population. But they are not giving money away. Even at that they have many shortcomings. "That is why their poor are equal to lower middle class in the usa" Not true, in reality our poor is equal to their lower middle class. "Also: wage stagnation is certainly a thing." It is a myth. People never had it better.
1
"Firslty, you must consider that the politics of it. If such wealth inequality persists whereby the basic needs of the masses are not met, then radicals will use this imbalance to destroy the system." Define "basic needs". In the US we have an obesity problem, so with food it seems like we have that covered. "You treat all people with the same expectation, that their defined value and usefulness is simply through their ability to create wealth." On the large scale that is true. When you micromanage it it isn't, but that is for individual cases. But if we are going to talk about wealth inequality on a the large scale then we have to discuss the large scale. "If basic needs are insured people are more free to persue their happiness, " Someone has to provide those "basic needs". They just don't exist. Someone has to pick up my trash, clean the toilets in the building I work in. How do you insure people have "basic needs"?
1
"Objectively, Europeans have better education, healthcare, inftastructure etc. " Not true at all. What is your measure of a strong education system? Test scores or productivity? Sure many of those countries do better on tests, but we do better in productivity. Would you rather have students who test well or who actually produce? And our college system is arguably the best, but at the very least different but still strong. Our healthcare system, objectively, is on par with those countries which is amazing consider we have 320+ million people. Two professors wrote an entire book on that issue and found that other countries ARE NOT better than the US objectively. For example, if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. There are other factors as well. Another writer wrote how in those Nordic countries they have lower rates of smoking and obesity which contributes to higher healthcare outcomes. And Sweden has just as much wealth inequality as the US. "we may as well insure basic healthcare then progress from there." Define "basic healthcare" and how do you provide it? Again, this is something someone has to provide. In other countries people have died on waiting lists.
1
"the rich person rode in a plane or limo in the 60s you idiot. They don't give a fuck about a car. " Good for them, I and many others do. "second, If the rich paid taxes and funded NASA, medical science, physics, and education, we would probably be living on Mars and Earth, cured cancer, and have nuclear fusion reactors. " I have a degree in physics, I have many friends who are doctoral students in physics who research fusion, I am a grad student myself. We are nowhere near using fusion as an energy source. You say "cure for cancer", what kind? There are many kind.
1
Omar Hanbali, you are missing one important point here, goods and services just don't exist, even the "basic" ones. Someone has to provide them. The only way you can insure everyone has access to them is if you force people to provide them.
1
James Cooper, I do not support tax havens. I want the money to stay here. You do that by lowering our taxes.
1
"NASA is getting massive funding from taxes from rich people = We land on moon in 1969 NASA funding is cut, taxes for rich are cut = We haven't left Earth orbit since 1972" Sending a rocket to the moon is not that difficult. The reason why we have not gone back is because there is nothing up there. Again, fusion is something I know a lot about. It has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact it is challenging to reach that goal, if ever.
1
Very true. Also, wealth inequality is not. In reality wealth inequality shows how strong a country is.
1
Terrible, will lead to inflation. If you make the UBI say $20,000 a year my rent will go from $600 a month, so $7200 a year, to $27,200 a year. Why? Because now everyone has $20,000 to start. It is similar to having a race that is a mile long and having everyone start 500 feet from the starting line. You did not solve anything.
1
coolmodelguy, too present in a different why on why your comparison of overall productivity to the min. wage is poor, say you have 3 people all earning the min. wage. Then one person gets a degree in engineering and becomes much more productivity to where they go from earning a min. wage (say $8/hr for simplicity) to $30/hr, and the other two workers don't. At the beginning their wages were $8/hr and say they averaged producing $10/hr between them. Now say between them they average producing $60/hr., where the two low wage workers produce $10/hr on average, and the engineer produces $40/hr. According to you those low wage workers should now earn $20/hr as the overall productivity between the three went up from $30/hr to $60/hr. But that is only because one worker became that much more productive. Comparing overall productivity to the lowest skilled workers is flawed.
1
There is a difference between wealth and money. Jeff Bezos earns only around $81,000 a year. He is so wealthy because he owns most of Amazon's stocks.
1
Once again Kyle has no clue what wealth is and why wealth inequality is not bad.
1
Chen, I can stand by my statement. When 60% of the average home owners' wealth is tied into their home the reality is that beyond owning a home the average person does not have much wealth. Not everyone wants to own a run a major corporation.
1
Ryan Neitzel, in a free market people become that wealthy by providing to society. That is not a bad thing.
1
Sean M., we have wealth inequality of this size for two reason 1. Many people go in debt due to college loans and home loans. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Thus when they go in debt they have negative wealth. That is not bad as we allow people to go in the whole before moving up. 2. Very few people have the desire to manage a major corporation. Most want to live their life, raise a family, drink and watch football. Very few want to be the Walton family who owns half of Walmart. Wealth inequality does not mean a market with limited consumption. In fact, it means you have more consumption as you have successful businesses that provide for people and more people making larger purchases.
1