Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Shoe0nHead" channel.

Which ironically is caused by the policies that Shoe still supports, the more the government gets involved in economics the worse the economy gets, but Shoe still doesn't understand that.
533
@KrMaHo The Scandinavian economies are demonstrably failing, Sweden is becoming poor and unemployment and crime is rising, Denmark and Norway are stagnating and lack market competition.
39
@edinalewis4704 They really don't, for example healthcare and welfare managed by the government across the world actually produce lower quality healthcare with longer wait times, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK all have these problems, like at least they get lower cost but the lack of competition ensures that the quality will remain low. Their economies, and especially their younger generations, also are suffering the same as in the US, unemployment across the world is rising and economic prosperity has been decreasing for all the nations who adopted such policies.
32
Its also moving their ideology towards small government and better economics, the exact opposite of what Shoe wants because she's still a white woman at heart.
25
@liamnehren1054 Nope, in fact before the US had such regulations (in either the states or the federal government) there was no contiguous monopolies in the US, the railroad and steel companies only got away with what they did before the federal regulation because of state regulations barring competition in the state and across state lines but socialists don't like addressing that issue because everything must be reductive. (they barred the ability to buy land in the states [not usually territories] without approval by the state which went through such company lobbies) The steel and railroad companies lobbied the states for those laws and eventually the successors to those trusts and monopolies lobbied the laws into the US Congress, you'll also notice numerous banksters and rich "philanthropists" like Carnegie and Rockefeller (who were operating monopolies and trusts) that actually lobbied directly for those type of laws in the 1910s. Also the US has more corporate regulations then Japan and Norway so that clearly isn't the issue.
24
@kjhuang "If you have an economic system where the top 1 percent has most of the power, the top 1 percent will get most of the benefits." That's irrelevant to economics and also not true. Also who cares if they "reap the most benefits" if everyone reaps more benefits, that's called envy and its a sin in most religions. You just want what other people have. "government-created Internet." That's a fallacious argument, aside from its false, as DARPA only developed a general initial concept of network principals and no part of the government had any hand in the development of the necessary standards to enable national and global access to the internet, being anti-government does not mean I do won't take advantage of what exists. The internet could've developed and existed without governments, that doesn't mean I throw everything that happened from governments out with the bath water, it doesn't mean I can't principally use the government developed things, those are completely irrelevant claims and thus is a fallacy. Of course the socialist tries to argue against economics using fallacies and falsehoods.
21
@paavoilves5416 They're all doing poorly in some way economically, (Norway and Denmark less so) most of Europe is in very poor economic straits, its part of the contributing reasons why some center right policies are picking up throughout Europe. (they're not moving right politically though) They're usually more fiscally conservative then the US government mostly for procedural and budgetary reasons, (and lack of direct control over the currency by any one state) but that only really delays the issues, not stops them.
8
@CritLoren "way more expensive" That's an argument from irrelevant point fallacy, nobody argued in regards to that. Had someone else said it wasn't more expensive I would've also called them a liar, it is more expensive but that's irrelevant to my point. "not anywhere as good" That's statistically and demonstrably false, the healthcare outcomes and healthcare quality in the US is superior to all those countries, if you compare the outcomes of healthcare coverage in the US against every other nation in the world it is just straight better, the complaint people have is down to cost and insurance coverage, not quality, nobody complains about the quality or outcomes of American healthcare. And the opinionated perceived quality of outcome statistics are fallacious and invalid because they aren't based on objective metrics but subjective self-reporting, (usually by partisans and activists for state mandated healthcare lobbies with an agenda) healthcare does not exist to improve the perception of healthcare, that's a missing the point fallacy. Also the US government spends more on healthcare then other nation in the world.
8
@saucedogamillion Yes, its stagnating economically.
4
@Blue71974 "dad needed a colonoscopy well guess what that has been scheduled like 5-6 months from now" That's your insurance's fault, not the American healthcare system, if your insurance (or state laws) prohibits you from selecting a hospital or specialist, that's your fault for not evaluating your benefits package for your job or just randomly picking an insurance, or if you have Obamacare, that's actually the government's fault, again not US healthcare system's fault. Anecdotal cases aren't not not a proof in this case regardless. "Or it’s just so expensive that it doesn’t matter because you’re not gonna go because it’s so expensive." Again, that's irrelevant to my point.
4
@noahhager1187 Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
4
@jantube358 Most Americans are complaining about economic growth, not total economic prosperity, our economy was built on growth, without a growing economy the nation will quickly collapse where the average American would be manage a budget doing things like with the poverty level it would end up at.
3
@noahhager1187 Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee.
3
@noahhager1187 Had what exactly?
3
@noahhager1187 It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades)
2
@Rubenz343 "If that was the case, in todays society you would get absolutely screwed over by businesses" That's not economically true, statistically and economically, regulations actually most harm the lower and middle classes, the upper classes always benefit from the regulations as they reduce the need for employers at that level to compete and often stunt wages more, not to mention they increase unemployment and decrease market competition by bottlenecking the supply. Regulations empower monopolies and trusts, not ceases them, and the government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
2
@Rubenz343 You may also not understand that rich people don't pay the costs they're called to pay, its the poor that pay it because the rich are the suppliers of goods and services. Its all about second order thinking, incentives, and consequences, its actually quite simple if you can comprehend abstract consequence.
2
@oblivion_2852 If you get the government out of business, it actually eliminates that problems because massive conglomerates would have a leveling play field with small business owners, there's a reason all big businesses lobby for the government to institute more regulations against their specific field and products, it raises the barrier to entry and lower actually lowers the competition, which is the driving factor behind shortages and/or high prices. (if you cap the prices, then you just massive shortages, see the COVID toliet paper fiasco)
1
@noahhager1187 Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee. It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades) Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
1
@noahhager1187 Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee. It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades) Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
1
@maybayV2 "Curious, so you say that having no access to heath care because of the price is better than having less quality health care?" See the issue is in the US is we can pay for an insurance that generally still takes care of us in most cases, the cases for which individuals can't get healthcare is actually fairly rare because insurance in most cases does cover, and most Americans make enough money to at least subsidize the cost of the healthcare coverage we need. We complain about it being expensive but statistically we are entirely able to pay it. That doesn't mean the expense is not a problem but it is false to say it is inaccessible, and that aside in the American healthcare system if you are willing to completely ignore insurance you can actually choose competitive clinics that do have incentive to drive down costs and thus aren't expensive, however most Americans are lazy and don't bother to think of this as an option and thus most don't do this. Its also harder to find a good clinic like that because the supply of those clinics is limited which does still drive the price up a good bit, still its way better then our normal socialized prices. (because yes our medical system is heavily socialized and nearly nationalized as is)
1
@maybayV2 "but let private insurance stay so there can be providers who offer higher quality work for those who have money, while still keeping the government funded free health care to those who don't." Also private insurance isn't allowed to compete with nationalized insurance, its simply not possible because the nationalized insurance has a monopoly on the insurance, you're basically giving it an infinite pocket book thanks to the government. This is aside from the government trying to control every aspect for the sake of justifying itself, which often just regulates private insurance into either non-existence or uselessness, these are only some of the many reasons private insurance functionally does not exist in any nation that has fully adopted nationalized healthcare. The economic incentive alone destroy the private insurance. Also you don't need insurance to drive down the costs, and if you got the government to stop subsidizing the healthcare system you'd find it actually would decrease the costs too.
1
@maybayV2 "I really doubt the people who can't afford Healthcare, care if they have to wait. They've been waiting." This can be solved with competition, you don't need the government involved at all, its just poor economics and a terrible understanding of incentives for which anyone thinks you need government involved in the healthcare system, it was working brilliant in the US before the government got involved, it was cheap, fast, and the highest quality in the world with the best outcomes. We're still coasting by on the highest quality with the best outcomes, it can be fast in some cases, but the price is massive because of how monopolies the government has caused the industry in the US.
1
@noahhager1187 Fix what?
1
@jubacelmesias1154 So true.
1
@Rubenz343 "A better economy doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has more money." That's not how economics work, economics is not and will never be a zero sum game.
1
@Rubenz343 I do understand because I don't look at people as actors on the basis of wealth and no wealth, most people are completely immoral, money or no money, instead they operate based purely on incentives, a LEO's bad behavior is only a product of his incentives, even a bad LEO would not be willing to act like a bad officer if his incentives are right, the same is true of business, take the hand of government out and their incentive to lobby the government in their favor disappears.
1
@Rubenz343 You may also not understand that rich people don't pay the costs they're called to pay, its the poor that pay it because the rich are the suppliers of goods and services. Its all about second order thinking, incentives, and consequences, its actually quite simple if you can comprehend abstract consequence.
1
 @ashrafothman1458 Means nothing to my argument.
1
Define Socialist: doesn't understand basic economics. Consequences? What are those? Incentives? Never heard of em?
1
Of course Shoe still likes socialist policies because she's still a white woman at heart, being married rarely means crud, ha. Like if you actually think that the democrats ever good economic policy you just have brain damage, Shoe still doesn't understand anything about economics as usual. If you think men don't already massively side against that, especially as libertarian ideals of the American Constitution are becoming more politically entrenched, Trump has already popularized late 1700s small government values, as his "terminate income tax, fund with tariffs" policy he is now touting, and he very likely will try to do this proving once again the way to prosperity is by ejecting socialist economic policies, look at Argentina.
1