Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Why Is America So Rich? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. The bailouts of the worthless banking elite says yes
    50
  2. -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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Correct. One persons debts equals another persons assets. I see you know basic banking with Assets and Liabilities :)
    2
  7. 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
  8. +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
  9. Singapore Airlines, POSCO; Renault, Petrobras, Embraer = stateowned companies governments can pick winners
    2
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. I rather see my country burnt to the ground than occupied by a foreign power
    1
  13. 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
  14. Here you go https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
    1
  15. 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