Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. The bailouts of the worthless banking elite says yes
    50
  2. Despite all talk about a roof that limits human potental, so is the social mobility better in many countries that are more equal than America. And equal countries tend to have lower crime rates, fewer teenage pregancier, longer life expenctancy, less drug abuse, fewer people with depressions, less obeasity, and people feel as a part of a country and one society instead of just identifying themselves with people of their own kind of class. Without a broad base of consumers you can't massproduce stuff cheaply either. Don'tget my wrong, I am all for taxing hard working people low. Thats why I want a high tax on capital so the tax on labour could be kept at a minimum.
    17
  3. if america didnt fight in world war II you wouldnt be able to write your anti american stuff on the internet
    16
  4. southern europes economy is shit. and germany is going down because it only got old people and muslim migrants. they have no oil. no world reserve currency. france cannot win wars. germany is losernoobs who never wins a world war. italy is better at charming women and eating grapes than fighting wars. and britain is no longer an empire
    13
  5. i rather have global warming than nuclear power
    8
  6. If you want high birth rates, maybe you should do something about the economy? People dont get kids if they cant get an own home because they dont have a job to support themselves and much less a baby.. and dating is difficult if you live home with mom and dad.
    7
  7. -The low wage share and the high capital share out of the profits have lead to an unequal economy where the rich are getting richer while social mobility is getting harder for the hardworking bottom 95%, and with less money in their pockets its harder to keep spending up - which is the income source for buisnesses. - The high indebtibness have lead to money is getting sucked out from the economy. WIth lower interest rates on loans the nation would see that money going into consumer spending, buisness profits, job creation, and the increased demand would make it more profitable to expand production by investing in new factories and more machines that increase productivity and wages.
    7
  8. On the other does America have the reserve currency, and when it negotiates trade deals it does offer a market of 300+ million people which gives a bit more bargening power than if Macedonia would try to make some global trade deals. And if social reforms would be too difficult at Federal level, America could just imitate European countries and do it at the state level instead. So having a big country got both advantages and disadvantages.
    6
  9. right
    6
  10. People choose their own measurements when comparing countries to get the result they want. Americans have no vacations and work long hours, so of course they produce more output per person than European people. But Europeans have more free time, more equality, they got maternity leave, healthcare and collage provided by the government. And if you don't count the public sector into your comparison, then America seems more productive than Europe, resturants and food is cheaper in the US, but Europe got cheaper healthcare. Some say America is a better country because you could buy more stuff for 1 dollar than what you can in Europe, and that is true, but on the other hand so is wages lower in America.
    5
  11. The slashing of the public funding for education has lead to people having to pay for education more out of their own pockets. And the financial deregulation has lead to a debt based speculation economy. And ordinary Americans got it harder and have to go into debt to survive, real wages has been stagnant and the taxburden has been shifted away from the rich and moved upon the rest. And less money is going to the people, and more is going to wall street bankers and weapons contractors. And the national debt is basicly a non-problem. So what should be done? Financial regulation, cut all regressive taxes and tax the rich and close all loopholes, move away government spending from the military, corporate welfare and private prisons and use it to give free education, free collage and taxcuts for joe average, and then everyone should get a check of money from Uncle Sam so the private sector debt can reduced, and the government should set a maximum interest rate banks can charge.
    3
  12. Yet I do. And I'm not even a woman.
    3
  13. I like alternative media. And I don't like the old media such as radio, newspapers and tv. I don't like them when they are publicly owned, and I don't like when they are privatly owned and sponsored by the taxpayers. They simply produce propagandistic misleading information, or what can better be described as lies. I think it is hypocritical of rightwingers to talk about the importance of getting rid of government subsidies and that poor people should lift themselves up by their own bootstrap, while they able to writing their shit only just because taxpayers sponsering their shitty newspaper that nobody reads.
    3
  14. Correct. One persons debts equals another persons assets. I see you know basic banking with Assets and Liabilities :)
    2
  15. Public sector debt = Private sector assets Without a national debt, the American people got no assets. You are a sloppy banker Goldstein, now I am dissapointed in you :(
    2
  16. +theshizzlepeep 8 persons on this planet has worked hard and have therefore earned as much money as the poorest 4 billion people on this earth. You can do the same if you want to become equally rich as well. In America even a homeless person can become president.
    2
  17. Okay Prager I see you want more trees. But don't blame me when trees are falling down on young families that just wanna have a nice safe hiking trip. Don't blame me for all dead kids. And don't blame me for the low economic growth when pollen from trees cause allergic reactions and force people to stay home instead of working. Don't blame me for all the ugly trees in the landscapes. And don't blame me for the costs and efforts of planting them, because I don't want any goddamn trees. Some countries around the world in winterlandscapes as well as deserts do perfectly fine without any trees, so I see no point in having them here just because that would make some treehugging hippie happy.
    2
  18. Singapore Airlines, POSCO; Renault, Petrobras, Embraer = stateowned companies governments can pick winners
    2
  19. eu is just old people and muslims and china can only make cheap stuff without quality. America have the largest army in the world and is the only superpower
    2
  20. Indeed.
    2
  21. I am a marxist scum, but I don't mind privatizing the entire media. I don't want a single tax dollar to support this garbage.
    2
  22. america is great because its good
    2
  23. Without oil people die. Its simple as that. The population in the world was only possible thanks to the green revolution, which was possible thanks to oil Oil is needed for the food industry, for the military, for the police, firefighters and ambulances. We need oil for petrochemical products whether its some plastic tools, roads or medicines. It took over a hundred years to build an energy grid around fossile fuels. So only an ignoart idiot would think that we could replace all fossile fuels in flip of a switch. We will need atleast 30 years of massive investments on a warlike scale. Most oil countries have already reached their production peaks, and no new oil has been found in suffiecent amounts to replace it. So there is good reason to start replacing all coal plants, all combustion engines in cars, trucks, planes and chainsaws and invent new ways of producing food without fossile fuels for production of fertilizer, pesticides, and using it for waterpumps, tractors, and planes that spray the fields, and radiators for the harvest, and vechicles that transport all the food to consumers. Only an idiot would think problems like this can be solved in a short period of time. On average it takes 12 years to build a power plant. And before you could build thousands of plants you need construction materials. So then you will need to open more mines. But that will consume even more time, since it on average will take 12 years to open a new mine and have it entering into production.
    2
  24. One thing does not exclude the other. Furthermore, killing off low-productive buisnesses will free up resources and give high productive buisnesses more place to grow.. just like killing off weed will give other plants more energy to grow. I want strong buisnesses with with high productivity the ability to grow. The other ones will just die anyways sooner or later when they face global competition.
    2
  25. america doesnt steal land like you russians always do
    2
  26. 80% of the asylum seekers in europe doesn't come from the war in syria...so Sweden and Germany could easily have rejected them entry without breaking international law. And neighter is there any moral responsibiliy to help welfare tourists, rather on the contrary, that money could have better been spend on foreign aid. So stop blaming America for Europes own stupidity.
    2
  27. the communists needs to be taken down
    2
  28. So how will America repay its debts? Will uncle sam tax you and take a dollar out of you pocket in taxes, and then give the money back to you as repayment of his loans? Because that's how he would treat the American people I guess, or rather, the taxpayers have to pay the national debt, while the rich people who have been creditors to the US government gets more money on their private accounts. Wealth is transferred, and then the rich people spends their money back into the economy, or they get some of their wealth taken away in taxes and the money comes back into society trough wages for solidiers and teachers.
    1
  29. Most countries will do well if they would have the same opportunity. Recources are are a benifit, but they are not a guarantee for sucess. And countries in Africa comes to my mind. "If someone is against government run education they can just use the free market to create their own schools." Private schools are driven for profit and public schools are meant to serve the public good. So when you allow private schools you will undermine the system in my opinion. Firstly, the well performing kids from good families will go to private schools, while poor kids in much needs stays in the public school. The private sector takes the apple and leaves the poo for the government. And when the school system has been segregates, the rich would feel less care for the public schools and rather want tax cuts than helping poor kids. And leaves the poor kids in underfunded schools. And schools can no longer fullfill its meaning as a public good, and poor kids have little chance in life because social mobility is lower nor when the fabric of society has been torn apart. And the rich only cara about themselves. Imagine if roads were private because they were built by the rich and not by the government. The railway system in India and America was built by the private sector, and companies were paid per mile of road they laid.. so they of course made unnessary turns and didn't take the shortest road between two locations, because it was more profitable to do so. Swedens railway system was built by the government because the people lacked the resources. And as a result, the railways was instead built to connect two towns with the shortest possible road. And privatizing roads leads to a tollboot economy Adam Smith and classical economists opposed. Its a free lunch for the rich people. They rich doesn't contribute anything to society while wealth is being sucked out from the real economy by tollbooths, and rents. So what classical economists wanted was to tax away all rents, and instead keep taxes low on labour. Classical economists didn't want any free lunch, they wanted meritocracy, and rewarding hard work and innocation. So if taxes on capital is high taxes on labour could be low. If America did that, US labour would become cheaper and more competative globally. And if you regulate down rents, from mortages, credit cards debts, student loans, car loans etc.. you will let the workers keep more of what they produce. Hard work pays better off. People can survive on lower wages when they don't have to pay much taxes and rents - which makes labour cheap and internationally competative. And since workers are doing well, consumers would also be doing well, and when people keep more money the can consume more - which creates more profits for companies and it would be more profitable to expand production and hire more people.
    1
  30. I rather see my country burnt to the ground than occupied by a foreign power
    1
  31. Mail only gets delievered in areas where its profitable to do so, while rest have to do without... even if it might harm society at large. Railroads only have trains driving certain times and certain places.. while ignoring good transportation troughout the country all day so people can't travel or get to work at a reasonable time. Maintance costs is also minimized to keep profits up, which in turn results bad safety and accidents that cause deleys, which makes customers choosing to drive instead when trains are too unreliable to keep in schedule. Letting the private sector handling the military and applying lean production leads to constant shortages of ammunition and supplies... which makes an army hugely ineffective. Running an army like a corporation also makes it ineffecient, since will focus on killratios, number of sorties flown etc, while ignoring all other more important aspects of war. The failure at Vietnam is great example. United States have the most expensive healthcare in the world, but doesn't perfom any better than it's poor Cuban neighbour where the average person just earns 1/25 of what the average Joe in America makes. Drugcompanies systematically lies about the effectiveness of drugs and cover up the negative sideeffects. And when success is only measured in profits, the quality of healthcare will suck as a result, because the number of hospital beds and healthcare workers will be minimized in relation to the number patients. The personel gets overworked (and thereby perform less) and the patients feel unsatisfied when nobody haves time to listen to their problems. And the problem with private schools and cleaning services in schools and hospitals are the same: You can only maximize the profits by understaffing. And having the private sector run the energy grid usally ends up in Enrons and Oligopolies that push up prices up prices high to keep up profits. That in turn will result in less money over for the consumpers to spend on consuming goods that create jobs, and the high energy prices will impose extra costs on the industry in your country and make it less competative internationally. If the government can't pick winners, then how come that Singapore Airlines is the highest ranked Airlines? And that Renault and Embraer was government owned for most of the post WWII period? Or that the Brazilian Development Bank makes more profits than most private banks in Brazil? Furthermore am I not convinced that the present model of capitalism is the best, since it is a high cost economy where labour is taxed instead of capital. Where people are paid less and are more indebted so they got less money to spend to keep consumtion demand up, so companies get interested in hiring and investing. We have a high cost economy instead of a low cost economy. Companies buy up other companies with borrowed money, at that money needs to get repaid with interest, so the bought company needs to get plundered to pay the debts. Then the company gets plundered to pay for dividends and ridiculously high CEO salaries and stock options for the board of directors. And behind this crap is an also an ideology that assumes that perfect competion exists, despite its criterias almost never are meet.
    1
  32. You mean France that cannot win a war? Or Germany that justs wants to take over the world?
    1
  33. Siemka. Kto do pluton?
    1
  34. Let the women do what they want with their body I say. Europeans are the ultimate hypocrites, they dont believe in God but yet they think abortion is wrong!? There is no arguments against abortion unless you are a religious nutjob.
    1
  35. You say only poverty matters. But you are wrong, because inequality matters too. Unequal societies have higher rates of crime, drug abuse and alcohol abuse, more droupouts, more teenage pregnancies, more suicides, more cases of psychological illness, lower average life expectancy, lower levels of trust and happiness, higher infant mortality, worse performance in schools and the list goes on and on. So saying increased inequality is a non-problem is just ignorant. Furthermore, is high levels of inequality a threat to democracy.
    1
  36. Here you go https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
    1
  37. Its actully a cost saving to do an abortion, compared to deliver a child that would cost 10x more and on top of that you get kids no one could take care of that got a high risk of ending up as miserable people, welfare bums, criminals and whatever that costs the taxpayers money. So this argument of not paying for abortions because you are dumb enough to think you can save any money by doing so, is just counterproductive. You may not like abortions, but then you have to accept to pay more in taxes if you refuse to subsidise it.
    1
  38. I know. The newspapers here in Sweden are private and supported by taxpayers for the sake of "democracy" and "the free word". And we got a state owned TV channel. I know its different in other countries, but thats how it is here. And since I think the journalism is garbage and only propaganda I prefer not to pay for it. I think the blogosphere and social media got higher quality in their texts and deserve funding more than the so called proffessional journalists do. So I say, lets privatize all media. Let them sink or swim.
    1
  39. first
    1
  40. America First
    1
  41. I like fossile fuels, but an energy transition will happen. It simply isn't a choice. Either we do it voluntarily in an organized manner, or the prices gets so high that it hurt the economy and cause a recession and caos, and we sit there without any other energy source or capital to build any new ones. Peak oil, peak coal, peak gas and peak uranium are facts. And any person clinging on to those energy sources aren't simply worth listening to.
    1
  42. The wage share increase at the expense of capital. Sounds fair.
    1
  43. And it you are for free markets you must also be for open borders. Because regulating immigration is a from of protectionism of the labourmarket.
    1
  44. Allow me to quote the smartest person who have ever lived: Albert Einstein. He said: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."... and "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." So I guess the best thing we could do is to close down all schools since they are useless.
    1
  45. Grammer does not has anything to do with having the tallest intelligens.
    1
  46. I don't know where you got that number from, but I'm still not impressed. GDP growth can either be the result of higher productivity, or by a growing population. In Swedens case, the latter is a strong factor. Half a million people came to Sweden last year, and today the country got 10 million people. No other country in history have tried such an extreme immigration policy. Swedens population growth rate is now in parity with 3rd world countries like Bangladesh. A high GDP isn't the same thing as a high income per head (GDP per Capita). A country can have a huge GDP and a poor population (like India). And the opposite can be true as well, like Luxemburg. So which country is the most succesful? I would argue Luxemburg is a better place to live than India. And furthermore, Sweden's national debt is low, but the population is indebted over their ears. Swedens debt to GDP ratio is the highest in the world. And this is partly a result of the housing bubble here, caused by the tax shifts I talked about, as well as the idiot policy of balanced budget constraint for the government, so the people have to go into debt just to survive when the government is doing a stupid deflationary policy. And Sweden didn't consider 7-10% unemployment as a sucess in the 1960s like we do today. 1% unemployment was the normal figure, while the oil crisis in the 1970s made unemployment go up to 3%, and then it got called "mass-unemployment". Sweden also have a growing wealth gap. The railroad system is falling apart since it got privatized. The police is breaking apart. Swedens army was perhaps the strongest in Europe in 1994, but today its among the weakest of the west-European despite defence spending is still high. Our school system togheter with Finlands (which had the same system) was the best in the world til the 1990s, but today its partly privatized and the results have fallen like a rock, while Finland still remains number 1 in the world. The list goes on and on. And Sweden is in no way unique. The Washington consensus is a disease spread all over the world. And the left have fallen in love with this shit, and they label everyone who opposes EU and unrestrained globalization as backwards and racist.
    1
  47. I was talking so much in my last post that I forgot to mention my main point :P Swedens GDP is going up, but the GDP per capita is going thanks to immigration. In addition population growth does not coincide with gdp growth. Most macroeconomist will then disagree with you. Read Piketty for example. So I don't know what you mean that no other country has never had a more extreme policy ... population growth in Sweden is nowhere near that of developing nations btw Last year no other country in western Europe or North America had a 3 times higher population growth rate than Bangladesh. And it's GINI coefficient is one of the lowest in the world Yes you are right. It could be worse. But with the last rightwing government we had literarly the fastest growing inequalities in the world.
    1
  48. Furthermore gdp per capita was not the discussion, rather growth. I apologize that due to a decrease in exports, the Chinese market slowed, it has since been revised downwards... Yet still is stronger than many others in Europe. Growth is worthless if it doesn't go to the people. Per Capita is what matters, since I don't give a shit if Wallenbergs companies make another billion or not. Swedens GDP is partly fueled by immigration, partly fueled by malinvestment into a housing bubble and partly due to our evil mercantilist trade policy, where we by artificial wage dumping can steal jobs and economic growth from other countries... like the South European countries who took a bad hit in Euro crisis. A smart trade policy should be about high wages that fuel the home market. It should be about using our plenty of cheap hydroelctric energy for making the industry competative. It should be about making things with use value, instead of increasing prices of homes with the help of inflation.
    1