FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Patrimonial capitalism, a future dominated by inherited wealth

Patrimonial capitalism, a future dominated by inherited wealth

(24:30) Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Kruger discusses some of the insights in Thomas Piketty's book, 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'. Bill Moyers 2014.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1334 days ago)

Taxing the rich is a red herring , it's something that is politically appealing to the masses, it's a way for govt. to point the finger at some one else rather than themselves and deflect blame. The govt. Is becoming more and more indebted everyday, spending way beyond its means and will blame everyone and anyone but itself. Taxing the rich more will hardly make a difference, if it's at all possible for many of the reasons Cengland has noted, the main one being that the rich can afford to defer taxes by many strategies.

the real problem is the taxes themselves, not just income tax but the myriad of other taxes increasing not just in amounts but in numbers as well. The govt. can't see that raising taxes destroys an economy, sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. The problem is govt. spending not how much people aren't paying, they're paying way too much already.

ReplyVote up (308)down (277)
Original comment

Taxing the rich is a red herring , it's something that is politically appealing to the masses, it's a way for govt. to point the finger at some one else rather than themselves and deflect blame. The govt. Is becoming more and more indebted everyday, spending way beyond its means and will blame everyone and anyone but itself. Taxing the rich more will hardly make a difference, if it's at all possible for many of the reasons Cengland has noted, the main one being that the rich can afford to defer taxes by many strategies.

the real problem is the taxes themselves, not just income tax but the myriad of other taxes increasing not just in amounts but in numbers as well. The govt. can't see that raising taxes destroys an economy, sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. The problem is govt. spending not how much people aren't paying, they're paying way too much already.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1333 days ago)

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you.

If you taxed the filthy rich and took all their money and possessions away, it would not do much to reduce our debt of 17.5 trillion dollars. The net worth of the top 50 people is 1.0053 trillion dollars. So taking 100% of their money and other assets away would only reduce the debt by 5.7%.

What our government should do is to reduce spending. We need to set a budget that is below our tax revenue and stick with it. Just be prepared because it will have a negative impact on the economy because our government spends about 19 percent of GDP so if you reduce that spending, it could put people out of work.

ReplyVote up (291)down (293)
Original comment

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you.

If you taxed the filthy rich and took all their money and possessions away, it would not do much to reduce our debt of 17.5 trillion dollars. The net worth of the top 50 people is 1.0053 trillion dollars. So taking 100% of their money and other assets away would only reduce the debt by 5.7%.

What our government should do is to reduce spending. We need to set a budget that is below our tax revenue and stick with it. Just be prepared because it will have a negative impact on the economy because our government spends about 19 percent of GDP so if you reduce that spending, it could put people out of work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

How about reducing government spending by getting rid of private prisons? Having the biggest prison population in the world is very expensive.

ReplyVote up (271)down (237)
Original comment

How about reducing government spending by getting rid of private prisons? Having the biggest prison population in the world is very expensive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

Privitization of government controlled services has historically proven to save money.

ReplyVote up (267)down (251)
Original comment

Privitization of government controlled services has historically proven to save money.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

One simple way to reduce government spending (and boost the economy), is to have a living wage by law.

But actually, it's all a red herring - government and corporations are in bed together screwing not each other, but everybody else.

Until 'governing for the people' becomes the priority over fund-raising, nothing will change.

ReplyVote up (266)down (249)
Original comment

One simple way to reduce government spending (and boost the economy), is to have a living wage by law.

But actually, it's all a red herring - government and corporations are in bed together screwing not each other, but everybody else.

Until 'governing for the people' becomes the priority over fund-raising, nothing will change.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

If the government would get back to their roots and provide bare minimum of services such as defense and pay for the legislative branch, stop paying for farm subsidies, aid to other countries, health care, and other subsidies then we would be in a better position than we are today.

When you say the way to reduce government spending is to give everyone a living wage so a single woman can work at McDonalds for her whole life and put three kids through college, buy a $250,000 house, and a luxury car, that is absurd. Your definition of living wage does not allow for anyone to share an apartment with others and share the utilities and buy clothing from a thrift shop and drive a bicycle to work. The government should not be responsible for giving away these benefits. Perhaps it's okay to give to children that were born in poverty because those unfortunate kids didn't get to pick their deadbeat parents. I still believe that it should be illegal to have children if you cannot afford to support them but as it turns out with our current system, Mrs. cengland0 gives out more money out to families when they have more children. We are encouraging the poor to have more and more kids just so they can sit at home and live off the system instead of being independent.

It has already been shown by the congressional budget comittee report that increasing that minimum wage will only put 900,000 people out of poverty but also likely put 1,000,000 completely out of work. Even if a million was taken out of poverty, and nobody was fired, that only impacts 0.3% of the population and I want a solution that affects 99% of the population and reducing the budget does that.

ReplyVote up (278)down (254)
Original comment

If the government would get back to their roots and provide bare minimum of services such as defense and pay for the legislative branch, stop paying for farm subsidies, aid to other countries, health care, and other subsidies then we would be in a better position than we are today.

When you say the way to reduce government spending is to give everyone a living wage so a single woman can work at McDonalds for her whole life and put three kids through college, buy a $250,000 house, and a luxury car, that is absurd. Your definition of living wage does not allow for anyone to share an apartment with others and share the utilities and buy clothing from a thrift shop and drive a bicycle to work. The government should not be responsible for giving away these benefits. Perhaps it's okay to give to children that were born in poverty because those unfortunate kids didn't get to pick their deadbeat parents. I still believe that it should be illegal to have children if you cannot afford to support them but as it turns out with our current system, Mrs. cengland0 gives out more money out to families when they have more children. We are encouraging the poor to have more and more kids just so they can sit at home and live off the system instead of being independent.

It has already been shown by the congressional budget comittee report that increasing that minimum wage will only put 900,000 people out of poverty but also likely put 1,000,000 completely out of work. Even if a million was taken out of poverty, and nobody was fired, that only impacts 0.3% of the population and I want a solution that affects 99% of the population and reducing the budget does that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

You have socialised healthcare in the Army. Would you make that private?

ReplyVote up (245)down (253)
Original comment

You have socialised healthcare in the Army. Would you make that private?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

We used to have military hospitals. We privatized several of them a couple decades ago. The military personnel go to the same hospitals and see the same doctors as civilians. Show their tri-care card and the service is free for them. There are still a military hospitals around such as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. That is the largest in the USA but I do see them reducing the number of clinics.

"Patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and other premier military hospitals are being sent to private doctors and having surgery and other treatment delayed because of furloughs to medical personnel, according to interviews and internal documents." LINK

One of my friends is a nurse practicioner and is a civilian. She worked on the base for the government under a contract at the navy hospital. (She eventually worked for a private practice since the money was better.) She is an example of where they have facilities on base but outsource the labor.

ReplyVote up (265)down (248)
Original comment

We used to have military hospitals. We privatized several of them a couple decades ago. The military personnel go to the same hospitals and see the same doctors as civilians. Show their tri-care card and the service is free for them. There are still a military hospitals around such as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. That is the largest in the USA but I do see them reducing the number of clinics.

"Patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and other premier military hospitals are being sent to private doctors and having surgery and other treatment delayed because of furloughs to medical personnel, according to interviews and internal documents." LINK

One of my friends is a nurse practicioner and is a civilian. She worked on the base for the government under a contract at the navy hospital. (She eventually worked for a private practice since the money was better.) She is an example of where they have facilities on base but outsource the labor.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JesusYourFlavour (1332 days ago)

Nice 1 Walter ;)

ReplyVote up (244)down (239)
Original comment

Nice 1 Walter ;)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JesusYourFlavour (1332 days ago)

LINK

forgive the incorrect subtitles

ReplyVote up (254)down (261)
Original comment

LINK

forgive the incorrect subtitles

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

You could try rethinking your whole approach to healthcare. The US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world, even pre Obamacare. And what do you get in return? Americans certainly don't live the longest.

ReplyVote up (263)down (250)
Original comment

You could try rethinking your whole approach to healthcare. The US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world, even pre Obamacare. And what do you get in return? Americans certainly don't live the longest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

We have socialized health care already. If you work for the government for 20 years, you get free healthcare for life. If you reach retirement age (usually around 65), you get almost-free health care. If you work for a large corporation, they provide you with health care while you are working for them.

The only gap in the system is the people who work for mom and pop operations and are still too young to retire. Those people have now been given a choice of health care options through our health care marketplace. Depending on their income, there may or may not be a government subsidy to that health care. This is where I have a problem. If their income is too low, get a higher income to pay for your own health care or work for a large corporation.

If you think the poor never had health care before, that is absolutely false. Remember that Mrs. cengland0 is a social worker and the poor people get their health care paid for by the state anyway. That's the difference between medicade and medicare. The Affordable Health Care Act only helps a small number of people (I think 6 to 7 million) of our 300 million citizens.

The root cause of the high cost of health care is the price of drugs (due to patents on intellectual property), doctor wages, and equipment costs (an MRI machine is very expensive). Doctors deserve the wages they get and to reduce their pay would be catastrophic. People graduating from High School would pick a different career choice and we will eventually have a shortage of good doctors.

Here is one thing I would fix. A doctor is willing to get paid less than they currently bill. The proof is that they accept insurance and those companies have negotiated a lower rate for each service. I can visit my specialist doctor and they bill $265 for that 10 minute visit. The insurance company has a negotiated rate of $55 and my co-pay is $25. The insurance company only pays out $30 for that visit and the doctor writes off $205.

If the doctors charged everyone the same amount regardless if they had insurance or not, health care would be more affordable and we wouldn't need insurance. I would be willing to pay $55 per visit to the doctor to remove the $500 monthly charge I would have to pay for insurance if it wasn't subsidized by my employer.

Drug companies like Lyrica charge about $321 for a month's supply of their drug. This same company sells it to other countries, like Canada, for $165 per month. They also offer a generic equivalent in Canada which is not available in the USA. Since Pfizer is willing to sell Lyrica to Canada for less, they raise the price to the USA market. In my opinion, they should sell it to everyone for the same price (plus a little extra for international shipping).

ReplyVote up (268)down (273)
Original comment

We have socialized health care already. If you work for the government for 20 years, you get free healthcare for life. If you reach retirement age (usually around 65), you get almost-free health care. If you work for a large corporation, they provide you with health care while you are working for them.

The only gap in the system is the people who work for mom and pop operations and are still too young to retire. Those people have now been given a choice of health care options through our health care marketplace. Depending on their income, there may or may not be a government subsidy to that health care. This is where I have a problem. If their income is too low, get a higher income to pay for your own health care or work for a large corporation.

If you think the poor never had health care before, that is absolutely false. Remember that Mrs. cengland0 is a social worker and the poor people get their health care paid for by the state anyway. That's the difference between medicade and medicare. The Affordable Health Care Act only helps a small number of people (I think 6 to 7 million) of our 300 million citizens.

The root cause of the high cost of health care is the price of drugs (due to patents on intellectual property), doctor wages, and equipment costs (an MRI machine is very expensive). Doctors deserve the wages they get and to reduce their pay would be catastrophic. People graduating from High School would pick a different career choice and we will eventually have a shortage of good doctors.

Here is one thing I would fix. A doctor is willing to get paid less than they currently bill. The proof is that they accept insurance and those companies have negotiated a lower rate for each service. I can visit my specialist doctor and they bill $265 for that 10 minute visit. The insurance company has a negotiated rate of $55 and my co-pay is $25. The insurance company only pays out $30 for that visit and the doctor writes off $205.

If the doctors charged everyone the same amount regardless if they had insurance or not, health care would be more affordable and we wouldn't need insurance. I would be willing to pay $55 per visit to the doctor to remove the $500 monthly charge I would have to pay for insurance if it wasn't subsidized by my employer.

Drug companies like Lyrica charge about $321 for a month's supply of their drug. This same company sells it to other countries, like Canada, for $165 per month. They also offer a generic equivalent in Canada which is not available in the USA. Since Pfizer is willing to sell Lyrica to Canada for less, they raise the price to the USA market. In my opinion, they should sell it to everyone for the same price (plus a little extra for international shipping).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

Whatever your system, other countries do healthcare much better and cheaper.

You're right about the cost of drugs - Apparently the US spends $500 billion every year more than it needs to on drugs. From Forbes: "In the U.S., the FDA must deem a drug safe and effective before allowing it on the market. But at that point, there are no economic barriers to the use of those medications. By contrast, drugs in the United Kingdom must go through economic analyses by a unit known as NICE - United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Being safe and effective is not enough to pass muster with NICE. The drug must also be cost effective..." LINK

US government could save money by learning from countries that do healthcare better, rather than bowing down to giant phamacutical companies.

ReplyVote up (245)down (253)
Original comment

Whatever your system, other countries do healthcare much better and cheaper.

You're right about the cost of drugs - Apparently the US spends $500 billion every year more than it needs to on drugs. From Forbes: "In the U.S., the FDA must deem a drug safe and effective before allowing it on the market. But at that point, there are no economic barriers to the use of those medications. By contrast, drugs in the United Kingdom must go through economic analyses by a unit known as NICE - United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Being safe and effective is not enough to pass muster with NICE. The drug must also be cost effective..." LINK

US government could save money by learning from countries that do healthcare better, rather than bowing down to giant phamacutical companies.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

I have to disagree with your cost effective factor in the decision making. What if it was a cure for cancer and people could die but the drug costs too much. Your country would rather someone die or have severe symptoms than pay the costs of the medicine. A rich person might be willing to pay whatever the costs and it's not fair to them to hold back a safe medicine just because a panel in your NICE unit thinks it's too expensive.

It's also fair to release the drug at whatever price and then let the market decide if it's worth the price. If nobody can afford it and insurance companies exlcude it from their coverage, then it goes unsold and the manufacturer either has to reduce the price or take it off the market.

I was prescribed a drug in 2013 and the insurance company paid for the majority of it (less a small co-pay) until January of 2014 when they said they no longer cover that particular drug and offered 3 alternatives. I could still have paid the full amount out of pocket but I decided to get a new prescription from my doctor for one of the alternatively covered drugs to save me money. At least I had the option and it wasn't made for me by any government agency.

ReplyVote up (252)down (254)
Original comment

I have to disagree with your cost effective factor in the decision making. What if it was a cure for cancer and people could die but the drug costs too much. Your country would rather someone die or have severe symptoms than pay the costs of the medicine. A rich person might be willing to pay whatever the costs and it's not fair to them to hold back a safe medicine just because a panel in your NICE unit thinks it's too expensive.

It's also fair to release the drug at whatever price and then let the market decide if it's worth the price. If nobody can afford it and insurance companies exlcude it from their coverage, then it goes unsold and the manufacturer either has to reduce the price or take it off the market.

I was prescribed a drug in 2013 and the insurance company paid for the majority of it (less a small co-pay) until January of 2014 when they said they no longer cover that particular drug and offered 3 alternatives. I could still have paid the full amount out of pocket but I decided to get a new prescription from my doctor for one of the alternatively covered drugs to save me money. At least I had the option and it wasn't made for me by any government agency.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

Private healthcare is also available in the UK so any rich person can have whatever they want. Interestingly in the news today, NICE has refused a new breast cancer drug Kadcyla because at £90,000 per patient, it is not considered cost-effective. LINK

Bottom line is that other countries do healthcare better and cheaper, so the US could learn from them and change its relationship between government and big business - which is the core of the problem.

ReplyVote up (249)down (265)
Original comment

Private healthcare is also available in the UK so any rich person can have whatever they want. Interestingly in the news today, NICE has refused a new breast cancer drug Kadcyla because at £90,000 per patient, it is not considered cost-effective. LINK

Bottom line is that other countries do healthcare better and cheaper, so the US could learn from them and change its relationship between government and big business - which is the core of the problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

The relationship between government and big business doesn't mean we have any problems with our Health Care. We have top notch health care here. People from other all over the world come to the USA to get the best healthcare especially for critical services like heart or liver transplants.

Too bad for the rich citizens of the UK who would be willing to pay 90,000 pounds to save their life becuase that same drug, Trastuzumab Emtansine, has been approved in the USA. LINK

"A statistically significant improvement in PFS was observed in patients receiving ado-trastuzumab emtansine compared to those receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine" Seems effective enough to justify letting people live. My mother had breast cancer and I would have gladly have paid that cost for her if that drug was available at the time. My mother eventually died so it's too late now. So sad.

The planned cost is expected to be $9,800 a month, or $94,000 for a typical course of treatment. That is just a fraction of the costs paid for all surgical procedures she had to go through along with the many years of chemo and radiation treatment.

On a side note, I find it interesting that it only costs $94,000 in the USA but 90,000 pounds in the UK when, according to todays currency conversion should be only 53,606 pounds.

ReplyVote up (256)down (266)
Original comment

The relationship between government and big business doesn't mean we have any problems with our Health Care. We have top notch health care here. People from other all over the world come to the USA to get the best healthcare especially for critical services like heart or liver transplants.

Too bad for the rich citizens of the UK who would be willing to pay 90,000 pounds to save their life becuase that same drug, Trastuzumab Emtansine, has been approved in the USA. LINK

"A statistically significant improvement in PFS was observed in patients receiving ado-trastuzumab emtansine compared to those receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine" Seems effective enough to justify letting people live. My mother had breast cancer and I would have gladly have paid that cost for her if that drug was available at the time. My mother eventually died so it's too late now. So sad.

The planned cost is expected to be $9,800 a month, or $94,000 for a typical course of treatment. That is just a fraction of the costs paid for all surgical procedures she had to go through along with the many years of chemo and radiation treatment.

On a side note, I find it interesting that it only costs $94,000 in the USA but 90,000 pounds in the UK when, according to todays currency conversion should be only 53,606 pounds.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

You may have top notch healthcare in the US, but so many other countries do it better.

A WHO study in 2000 rated US healthcare at 37th in the world. No. 1 was socialist France. LINK

Life expectancy in the US is 50th in the world (27th out of the 34 industrialised OECD countries). LINK

A 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient healthcare systems ranked the US 46 out of 48 countries in the study. LINK

And just to add salt to the wound, US healthcare is the most expensive per capita in the world.

Interestingly, countries spending the highest proportion on private healthcare are countries like US, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Congo, Pakistan, Yemen (there are many more, especially in developing countries). Countries spending the lowest proportion privately are countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, UK (many more in developed countries.) LINK You can come to your own conclusions.

So don't you think the US could learn a thing or two from other countries. Top notch or not, there's obviously plenty of room for improvement.

I suggest the first place to look at is the relationship between government and big business.

ReplyVote up (261)down (242)
Original comment

You may have top notch healthcare in the US, but so many other countries do it better.

A WHO study in 2000 rated US healthcare at 37th in the world. No. 1 was socialist France. LINK

Life expectancy in the US is 50th in the world (27th out of the 34 industrialised OECD countries). LINK

A 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient healthcare systems ranked the US 46 out of 48 countries in the study. LINK

And just to add salt to the wound, US healthcare is the most expensive per capita in the world.

Interestingly, countries spending the highest proportion on private healthcare are countries like US, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Congo, Pakistan, Yemen (there are many more, especially in developing countries). Countries spending the lowest proportion privately are countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, UK (many more in developed countries.) LINK You can come to your own conclusions.

So don't you think the US could learn a thing or two from other countries. Top notch or not, there's obviously plenty of room for improvement.

I suggest the first place to look at is the relationship between government and big business.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

The study that you linked is contoversial. "The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted."

"So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010"

I agree with the controversy because things such as life expectancy does not belong with the quality of health care. That is a life-style issue. People dying in car accidents or of obesity do not represent how good the health care is. Literacy is another one that shouldn't be included because that is an educational issue instead.

In either way, it doesn't matter what the report says. It all boils down to the fact that our doctors and hospitals are the best in the world. I have had 5 surgeries and I'm glad they were done in the USA. I can get the best medicine too, even the expensive ones. I never even considered going to another country for those surgeries.

ReplyVote up (245)down (230)
Original comment

The study that you linked is contoversial. "The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted."

"So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010"

I agree with the controversy because things such as life expectancy does not belong with the quality of health care. That is a life-style issue. People dying in car accidents or of obesity do not represent how good the health care is. Literacy is another one that shouldn't be included because that is an educational issue instead.

In either way, it doesn't matter what the report says. It all boils down to the fact that our doctors and hospitals are the best in the world. I have had 5 surgeries and I'm glad they were done in the USA. I can get the best medicine too, even the expensive ones. I never even considered going to another country for those surgeries.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

You can believe what you like, but the numbers are not on your side.

ReplyVote up (266)down (256)
Original comment

You can believe what you like, but the numbers are not on your side.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

You mean those controversial numbers? The contoversy was not started by me, it was clearly documented in the link you provided.

ReplyVote up (249)down (276)
Original comment

You mean those controversial numbers? The contoversy was not started by me, it was clearly documented in the link you provided.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

I provided more than one link. Did you even bother looking at them, or was that too painful?

Was the 2013 Bloomberg study nonsense? LINK

Did the Guardian just make it all up? LINK

What about the Commonwealth Fund study in 2010 that ranked US last out of 7? LINK

Your experience might be top notch, I don't doubt that, but that's the same for rich people everywhere. Healthcare is about caring for the whole population, not just the rich.

ReplyVote up (253)down (273)
Original comment

I provided more than one link. Did you even bother looking at them, or was that too painful?

Was the 2013 Bloomberg study nonsense? LINK

Did the Guardian just make it all up? LINK

What about the Commonwealth Fund study in 2010 that ranked US last out of 7? LINK

Your experience might be top notch, I don't doubt that, but that's the same for rich people everywhere. Healthcare is about caring for the whole population, not just the rich.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

I think the misunderstanding we have is that you keep trying to find rankings of efficiency when I am only concerned about the quality of the health care. Efficiency numbers can be pushing as many patients through the system with as little cost as possible. If that is your main goal then you are right to say that we are far from the top. If you want the best quality care in the world where you can be sure the procedure will save your life, I think the USA is in the very top.

You and your country tries to put a price tag on life and that's why they refuse to approve a cure for cancer whereas the USA approved it because it does work.

ReplyVote up (264)down (246)
Original comment

I think the misunderstanding we have is that you keep trying to find rankings of efficiency when I am only concerned about the quality of the health care. Efficiency numbers can be pushing as many patients through the system with as little cost as possible. If that is your main goal then you are right to say that we are far from the top. If you want the best quality care in the world where you can be sure the procedure will save your life, I think the USA is in the very top.

You and your country tries to put a price tag on life and that's why they refuse to approve a cure for cancer whereas the USA approved it because it does work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

There's no misunderstanding. I've come to recognise your technique for accepting defeat - which is veering off into another topic just before closure is about to happen.

Typical example is earlier in this very thread - when I suggested abolishing private prisons would save the US government loads of money. Your reply: "Privitization of government controlled services has historically proven to save money" - A dead end that invites me to completely change the subject.

You've just done it again. You have no answer against the Bloomberg study, or the other reports, so you veer off into something about the price tag on life.

btw, NICE argue that £90,000 to prolong the life of one patient for 6 months can be better spent saving the lives of hundreds of other patients because the UK's National Health Service's budget is limited. Makes sense to me.

ReplyVote up (234)down (232)
Original comment

There's no misunderstanding. I've come to recognise your technique for accepting defeat - which is veering off into another topic just before closure is about to happen.

Typical example is earlier in this very thread - when I suggested abolishing private prisons would save the US government loads of money. Your reply: "Privitization of government controlled services has historically proven to save money" - A dead end that invites me to completely change the subject.

You've just done it again. You have no answer against the Bloomberg study, or the other reports, so you veer off into something about the price tag on life.

btw, NICE argue that £90,000 to prolong the life of one patient for 6 months can be better spent saving the lives of hundreds of other patients because the UK's National Health Service's budget is limited. Makes sense to me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

"There's no misunderstanding. I've come to recognise your technique for accepting defeat - which is veering off into other topic before closure is just about to happen." I have not been defeated. And you were the one that veered off topic. I started by telling you what I believe is contributing to the high costs of health care and you then start throwing in studies to show that the efficiencies of the health care in the USA is lower than other countries. WTF? That had nothing to do with WHY it's so expensive.

"A dead end that invites me to completely change the subject." Dead end means you couldn't contribute to the subject any longer and that my last statement was so true that you had no other choice but to change the subject and admit defeat.

"NICE argue that £90,000 to prolong the life of one patient can be better spent saving the lives of hundreds of other patients because the UK's National Health Service's budget is limited. Makes sense to me." Makes sense to you because you don't value human life. You have government controlled health care in your country and they have a limited budget so they will reduce the services they offer to stay within budget. In the USA, on the other hand, each person is responsible for their own health care so if we want to pay for a high price drug to save our lives, we have that option. It is not the governemnt that is making the end-of-life decision for me. Less government control means more choice for me.

ReplyVote up (255)down (234)
Original comment

"There's no misunderstanding. I've come to recognise your technique for accepting defeat - which is veering off into other topic before closure is just about to happen." I have not been defeated. And you were the one that veered off topic. I started by telling you what I believe is contributing to the high costs of health care and you then start throwing in studies to show that the efficiencies of the health care in the USA is lower than other countries. WTF? That had nothing to do with WHY it's so expensive.

"A dead end that invites me to completely change the subject." Dead end means you couldn't contribute to the subject any longer and that my last statement was so true that you had no other choice but to change the subject and admit defeat.

"NICE argue that £90,000 to prolong the life of one patient can be better spent saving the lives of hundreds of other patients because the UK's National Health Service's budget is limited. Makes sense to me." Makes sense to you because you don't value human life. You have government controlled health care in your country and they have a limited budget so they will reduce the services they offer to stay within budget. In the USA, on the other hand, each person is responsible for their own health care so if we want to pay for a high price drug to save our lives, we have that option. It is not the governemnt that is making the end-of-life decision for me. Less government control means more choice for me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1331 days ago)

It's better to be unhealthy and poor in almost every other developed country in the world, than in America.

ReplyVote up (256)down (252)
Original comment

It's better to be unhealthy and poor in almost every other developed country in the world, than in America.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

Not true. Our poor get free medical under our medicaid program. We have a blend between governmnet supplied health care and private health care. LINK

ReplyVote up (239)down (253)
Original comment

Not true. Our poor get free medical under our medicaid program. We have a blend between governmnet supplied health care and private health care. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1331 days ago)

you have a blend betwenn assfu*k and co*k suck.

fu*k you!

ReplyVote up (217)down (230)
Original comment

you have a blend betwenn assfu*k and co*k suck.

fu*k you!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

Next...

ReplyVote up (238)down (237)
Original comment

Next...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1331 days ago)

That latest comment confirms to me that you finally agreed with my last statement. Thank you.

ReplyVote up (224)down (244)
Original comment

That latest comment confirms to me that you finally agreed with my last statement. Thank you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1331 days ago)

If I agreed with you, I would tell you. That's just the way I am.

ReplyVote up (230)down (242)
Original comment

If I agreed with you, I would tell you. That's just the way I am.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1335 days ago)

Toward the end of this video, he says the poorest 20% of Americans pay 11% tax but the richest 1% pay 5.6% tax. This is very wrong. Our tax structure is designed to collect a higher percentage when your income is higher.

First it is important to understand that everyone gets a standard deduction.

LINK

If you are single, you get $6,100 that you can remove from your income and pay taxes on the difference. So, a person making $20,000 subtracts $6,100 from their income and pays tax on $13,900. which is $1,650 representing 11.9%.

LINK

Someone that earned a billion dollars, gets the same standard deduction so will pay tax on $999,993,900 which is $395,945,230.40 representing 39.6%.

ReplyVote up (229)down (212)
Original comment

Toward the end of this video, he says the poorest 20% of Americans pay 11% tax but the richest 1% pay 5.6% tax. This is very wrong. Our tax structure is designed to collect a higher percentage when your income is higher.

First it is important to understand that everyone gets a standard deduction.

LINK

If you are single, you get $6,100 that you can remove from your income and pay taxes on the difference. So, a person making $20,000 subtracts $6,100 from their income and pays tax on $13,900. which is $1,650 representing 11.9%.

LINK

Someone that earned a billion dollars, gets the same standard deduction so will pay tax on $999,993,900 which is $395,945,230.40 representing 39.6%.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Stupid American (1334 days ago)

Hello, cengland0. You either misunderstood the stat or intentionally ignored the data that was presented. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you merely misunderstood. The categories these stats were referring to were State and Local taxes, not Federal taxes. The information that you present to rebut the video is all about Federal taxes.

ReplyVote up (226)down (210)
Original comment

Hello, cengland0. You either misunderstood the stat or intentionally ignored the data that was presented. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you merely misunderstood. The categories these stats were referring to were State and Local taxes, not Federal taxes. The information that you present to rebut the video is all about Federal taxes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1334 days ago)

In that case, I pay zero state and local taxes on my income. Florida does not have any state taxes and neither does my county or city. Do you think that's fair?

ReplyVote up (226)down (220)
Original comment

In that case, I pay zero state and local taxes on my income. Florida does not have any state taxes and neither does my county or city. Do you think that's fair?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: unsurprised (1334 days ago)

You fail to account for how the person earning a billion dollars has earned it. This makes a difference. There are different types of income and they are accounted for differently, some not at all. I highly doubt the guy who earned a billion dollars earned it all through a taxable pay check.

ReplyVote up (239)down (235)
Original comment

You fail to account for how the person earning a billion dollars has earned it. This makes a difference. There are different types of income and they are accounted for differently, some not at all. I highly doubt the guy who earned a billion dollars earned it all through a taxable pay check.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1334 days ago)

Good point so take a typical billionairre and ask yourself where you think all his money comes from. Think it's in a huge savings account somewhere making 1% interest? Of course not. It's most likely in stocks which are not taxable until you sell it. Any gains you get in the stock market are called "unrealized gains" and are not taxable because they could actually go down again before you sell.

Give me a billionairre that has a taxable income of over $400,000 in a year that paid less than 30% in taxes. I bet you cannot do that. What you will see is that most of their "income" is increases in stock value, real estate value, or income earned in a different country that is not taxable in the USA. If they bring that money into this country, we will tax it then but as long as it is overseas, the country that it's earned it should be collecting the tax.

ReplyVote up (235)down (207)
Original comment

Good point so take a typical billionairre and ask yourself where you think all his money comes from. Think it's in a huge savings account somewhere making 1% interest? Of course not. It's most likely in stocks which are not taxable until you sell it. Any gains you get in the stock market are called "unrealized gains" and are not taxable because they could actually go down again before you sell.

Give me a billionairre that has a taxable income of over $400,000 in a year that paid less than 30% in taxes. I bet you cannot do that. What you will see is that most of their "income" is increases in stock value, real estate value, or income earned in a different country that is not taxable in the USA. If they bring that money into this country, we will tax it then but as long as it is overseas, the country that it's earned it should be collecting the tax.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1333 days ago)

All this time has gone by and nobody has shown me anyone making over $400,000 a year that paid less than 30% of their taxable income in taxes. Seems like it should have been an easy task if it was true. This reassures me that I was right again.

ReplyVote up (179)down (212)
Original comment

All this time has gone by and nobody has shown me anyone making over $400,000 a year that paid less than 30% of their taxable income in taxes. Seems like it should have been an easy task if it was true. This reassures me that I was right again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1332 days ago)

What's the point when you're just going to say that money in the Cayman Islands is not 'taxable income', or that capital gains is not income. You have become boringly predictable.

Just to change the subject a bit, I assume you have changed your views on climate change since you don't join in on those posts anymore.

ReplyVote up (236)down (213)
Original comment

What's the point when you're just going to say that money in the Cayman Islands is not 'taxable income', or that capital gains is not income. You have become boringly predictable.

Just to change the subject a bit, I assume you have changed your views on climate change since you don't join in on those posts anymore.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

Exactly my point. How can the USA legally tax money made at a different country? Do you want us to tax the money you make in the UK? That could probably help our budget crisis if we start taxing the income of all foreign companies and individuals. Hmmm..... Good idea except I'm sure that would start world war 3.

Capital gains is income as soon as it becomes realized. Let's say, for example, that I buy a house for $250,000. 10 years later the house is worth $325,000. Do you think I should have to pay cash out of pocket to pay for the additional $75,000 worth of the house? That is a capital gain so in your world I should have to pay taxes on that, right? Where do I get that money if I don't have it in my savings account? In my reality, I think it should not be taxable and isn't. Even if you sell that house and purchase another one for more than $325,000 then you still do not pay tax on the increase. You only pay if you sell the house and buy another one for $250,000 or less.

Another example. Let's say that I buy some Google Stock for $85 when it first became public and bought 1000 shares. That's $85,000. That same stock is now worth $534 and is now worth $534,000. That is an increase of value (unrealized gain) of nearly half a million dollars. Today that is not taxable. Are you recomending that we start charging tax on that gain before it gets sold? Where should the person get the money to pay the tax? What should happen if the stock price goes back down after the tax is paid, do they get a refund from the government?

I pointed out how wrong this video was with its statistics using erroneous values to make a biased point that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes when, in fact, the rich pay more than their fair share. You, nor Sat are able to come up with any examples of people paying less than 30% and are now just saying it's pointless to argue with me. It's pointless because I'm right and you're both wrong and that's why you are unwilling to defend your point.

ReplyVote up (215)down (220)
Original comment

Exactly my point. How can the USA legally tax money made at a different country? Do you want us to tax the money you make in the UK? That could probably help our budget crisis if we start taxing the income of all foreign companies and individuals. Hmmm..... Good idea except I'm sure that would start world war 3.

Capital gains is income as soon as it becomes realized. Let's say, for example, that I buy a house for $250,000. 10 years later the house is worth $325,000. Do you think I should have to pay cash out of pocket to pay for the additional $75,000 worth of the house? That is a capital gain so in your world I should have to pay taxes on that, right? Where do I get that money if I don't have it in my savings account? In my reality, I think it should not be taxable and isn't. Even if you sell that house and purchase another one for more than $325,000 then you still do not pay tax on the increase. You only pay if you sell the house and buy another one for $250,000 or less.

Another example. Let's say that I buy some Google Stock for $85 when it first became public and bought 1000 shares. That's $85,000. That same stock is now worth $534 and is now worth $534,000. That is an increase of value (unrealized gain) of nearly half a million dollars. Today that is not taxable. Are you recomending that we start charging tax on that gain before it gets sold? Where should the person get the money to pay the tax? What should happen if the stock price goes back down after the tax is paid, do they get a refund from the government?

I pointed out how wrong this video was with its statistics using erroneous values to make a biased point that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes when, in fact, the rich pay more than their fair share. You, nor Sat are able to come up with any examples of people paying less than 30% and are now just saying it's pointless to argue with me. It's pointless because I'm right and you're both wrong and that's why you are unwilling to defend your point.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: this is SPARTA (1332 days ago)

You are the only one who seems to think you are right, and everyone else is wrong? Why do you want so much money anyway? I am glad to contribute a proportion of my hard earned income to the good of my country. Yes I am not happy with the way my government spends that money but that is a problem for democracy to solve.

ReplyVote up (236)down (242)
Original comment

You are the only one who seems to think you are right, and everyone else is wrong? Why do you want so much money anyway? I am glad to contribute a proportion of my hard earned income to the good of my country. Yes I am not happy with the way my government spends that money but that is a problem for democracy to solve.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

You think I'm the only one with this opinion? Where did you come up with that statistic? I'm guessing it's because I'm the only American on a socialist UK site that posts about the economy.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes either. The government needs to be funded and I appreciate what our military does for us in terms of national defense.

What I don't want to do is have my hard earned money taken away outside of my control and given to some lazy people that have the ability to work but decide not to because it's easier to live off my money than to earn their own.

"Why do you want so much money anyway?" Sort of a silly question but I'll answer it for you anyway. The more money I earn, the more secure my future will be. I can pay for the best health care, the best foods, the best education, the best luxury items. If everyone was happy with the bare essentials to sustain life, there would be no motivation to earn more but in the real world, having a big house and a luxurious vehicle is nice. It's great to afford a maid to clean so I don't have to do it myself. I can afford to have someone else mowing my lawn and taking care of the daily tasks that I don't like doing myself and would rather pay someone else to do.

If I earn more money than I can spend myself, the excess goes into investments that will be used if I decide to retire. I enjoy working so have no intention to retire at this point. Mrs. cengland0 is retiring in October this year because she doesn't enjoy her job as much as I enjoy mine. After we die, our heirs will inherit the remaining net worth so they can also benefit from my hard work. Perhaps they will be able to enjoy a more luxurious life too.

ReplyVote up (218)down (222)
Original comment

You think I'm the only one with this opinion? Where did you come up with that statistic? I'm guessing it's because I'm the only American on a socialist UK site that posts about the economy.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes either. The government needs to be funded and I appreciate what our military does for us in terms of national defense.

What I don't want to do is have my hard earned money taken away outside of my control and given to some lazy people that have the ability to work but decide not to because it's easier to live off my money than to earn their own.

"Why do you want so much money anyway?" Sort of a silly question but I'll answer it for you anyway. The more money I earn, the more secure my future will be. I can pay for the best health care, the best foods, the best education, the best luxury items. If everyone was happy with the bare essentials to sustain life, there would be no motivation to earn more but in the real world, having a big house and a luxurious vehicle is nice. It's great to afford a maid to clean so I don't have to do it myself. I can afford to have someone else mowing my lawn and taking care of the daily tasks that I don't like doing myself and would rather pay someone else to do.

If I earn more money than I can spend myself, the excess goes into investments that will be used if I decide to retire. I enjoy working so have no intention to retire at this point. Mrs. cengland0 is retiring in October this year because she doesn't enjoy her job as much as I enjoy mine. After we die, our heirs will inherit the remaining net worth so they can also benefit from my hard work. Perhaps they will be able to enjoy a more luxurious life too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1332 days ago)

""You think I'm the only one with this opinion? Where did you come up with that statistic? I'm guessing it's because I'm the only American on a socialist UK site that posts about the economy. ""

HA HA you fuken troll, you guess SHEIT like the fuken troll that you are.

Plenty of Americans on boreme, but you don't represent americans because 99 % of americans opose corruption, bribery, legalised bribery, lobbying and want money out of politics.

SO GO FU*K YOURSELF! you corruption endorsing codger banker troll!

ReplyVote up (213)down (262)
Original comment

""You think I'm the only one with this opinion? Where did you come up with that statistic? I'm guessing it's because I'm the only American on a socialist UK site that posts about the economy. ""

HA HA you fuken troll, you guess SHEIT like the fuken troll that you are.

Plenty of Americans on boreme, but you don't represent americans because 99 % of americans opose corruption, bribery, legalised bribery, lobbying and want money out of politics.

SO GO FU*K YOURSELF! you corruption endorsing codger banker troll!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

Which of the other posters are Americans that are talking about capitalism? Regarding your 99% statistic, that has nothing to do with capitalism which is our economic model. You're confusing our political system with our economic one. Try to keep up with the discussion.

You accused me of trying to derail the subject but you're the one that keeps doing it by talking about political issues like corruption and lobbying and gun control. I was talking about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. See how way off you are trying to deflect this conversation?

ReplyVote up (215)down (207)
Original comment

Which of the other posters are Americans that are talking about capitalism? Regarding your 99% statistic, that has nothing to do with capitalism which is our economic model. You're confusing our political system with our economic one. Try to keep up with the discussion.

You accused me of trying to derail the subject but you're the one that keeps doing it by talking about political issues like corruption and lobbying and gun control. I was talking about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. See how way off you are trying to deflect this conversation?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1332 days ago)

you're trying so hard not to look like a codger troll it's ridiculous.

AA HA HA HA!! i'm not even going to adress your questions or statements because everybody knows by now that your manipulative troll tactics don't deserve a serious honest respectfull response, so with that in mind, all i can say to you is GOOOOOOOOOO FU*K YOURSELF you fascist codger banker troll, endorser of corruption, defender of the banks and oligarchs, supporter of everything that is EVIL in the world! aaa HA HA HA HA HA.

you stupid fuken troll! fu*k you!

ReplyVote up (230)down (216)
Original comment

you're trying so hard not to look like a codger troll it's ridiculous.

AA HA HA HA!! i'm not even going to adress your questions or statements because everybody knows by now that your manipulative troll tactics don't deserve a serious honest respectfull response, so with that in mind, all i can say to you is GOOOOOOOOOO FU*K YOURSELF you fascist codger banker troll, endorser of corruption, defender of the banks and oligarchs, supporter of everything that is EVIL in the world! aaa HA HA HA HA HA.

you stupid fuken troll! fu*k you!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

Your excuse for not providing proof of your false claims is that I'm a manipulative troll? That's a good one.

The list of fallacies to address your debate tatic is: Appeal to probability, argument from ignorance, argument from repetition, argument from silence, argumentum ad hominem, correlation proves causation, false authority (your friend that worked here for 1/2 year), ignoratio elenchi, kettle logic, mind projection fallacy, moral high ground fallacy, Onus probandi, red herring, hasty generalization, poisoning the well, abusive fallacy, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, and fallacy of relative privation.

ReplyVote up (255)down (222)
Original comment

Your excuse for not providing proof of your false claims is that I'm a manipulative troll? That's a good one.

The list of fallacies to address your debate tatic is: Appeal to probability, argument from ignorance, argument from repetition, argument from silence, argumentum ad hominem, correlation proves causation, false authority (your friend that worked here for 1/2 year), ignoratio elenchi, kettle logic, mind projection fallacy, moral high ground fallacy, Onus probandi, red herring, hasty generalization, poisoning the well, abusive fallacy, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, and fallacy of relative privation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Hole (1332 days ago)

oh oh oh, you got me you got me, please stop, you're undermining my credibility with your trollness.

bwaaa ha ha ha ha!!!

FU*K YOU troll!

ReplyVote up (218)down (217)
Original comment

oh oh oh, you got me you got me, please stop, you're undermining my credibility with your trollness.

bwaaa ha ha ha ha!!!

FU*K YOU troll!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1333 days ago)

nobody likes trolls like you so nobody answered you because everybody knows your troll game.

The video is about patrimonial capitalism and the subject is derived from T Picketty's book called Capital in the 21st century, based on empirical evidence gathered over 200 years.

Nobody wants to argue with you or answer your stupid pointless questions because it makes them look stoopid.

I (and sometimes Walter) am not afraid to argue with you and look like an IDIOT for doing so because i like trolling TROLLS like you who use manipulative tactics to steer people away from the main subject.

ReplyVote up (225)down (216)
Original comment

nobody likes trolls like you so nobody answered you because everybody knows your troll game.

The video is about patrimonial capitalism and the subject is derived from T Picketty's book called Capital in the 21st century, based on empirical evidence gathered over 200 years.

Nobody wants to argue with you or answer your stupid pointless questions because it makes them look stoopid.

I (and sometimes Walter) am not afraid to argue with you and look like an IDIOT for doing so because i like trolling TROLLS like you who use manipulative tactics to steer people away from the main subject.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1333 days ago)

trolls will be trolls.

the book is based on empirical evidence, and that evidence points out the fact that capitalism, as perceived by most people who have been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda into thinking it's a good thing, IS NOT a good thing.

People who deny this book's content and conclusions are arguing against the scientific method, which is pretty stupid thing to do, as stoopid as creationists can be.

ReplyVote up (257)down (245)
Original comment

trolls will be trolls.

the book is based on empirical evidence, and that evidence points out the fact that capitalism, as perceived by most people who have been brainwashed by rightwing propaganda into thinking it's a good thing, IS NOT a good thing.

People who deny this book's content and conclusions are arguing against the scientific method, which is pretty stupid thing to do, as stoopid as creationists can be.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1333 days ago)

There are critics of every economic model.

The one thing you forget is that we like our capitalistic society so we don't want to change it. You don't live here and are jealous of what we have so you think we should change. Well, get over it.

ReplyVote up (278)down (253)
Original comment

There are critics of every economic model.

The one thing you forget is that we like our capitalistic society so we don't want to change it. You don't live here and are jealous of what we have so you think we should change. Well, get over it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1333 days ago)

ha ha, you argue like a creationist does agains science. It's your FDR who invented the solutions proposed by Picketty, can't get more american than FDR, right?

A friend of mine got a job in the states, he stayed there for half a year and came back because peope are killing each other like savages.

You don't understand how abnormal it is to have people walking around with guns, ready to shoot for defense or otherwise, because you're used to it.

You can keep your patrimonial, oligarchic capitalism and you can keep your guns and your distorted sense of freedom.

America is a SHEIT country filled with SHEIT people, so get over it.

ReplyVote up (255)down (244)
Original comment

ha ha, you argue like a creationist does agains science. It's your FDR who invented the solutions proposed by Picketty, can't get more american than FDR, right?

A friend of mine got a job in the states, he stayed there for half a year and came back because peope are killing each other like savages.

You don't understand how abnormal it is to have people walking around with guns, ready to shoot for defense or otherwise, because you're used to it.

You can keep your patrimonial, oligarchic capitalism and you can keep your guns and your distorted sense of freedom.

America is a SHEIT country filled with SHEIT people, so get over it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

Your friend got a job in the states for half a year and you consider him some sort of expert on capitalism? Well, I've been working in the states for 33 years. I have also lived in Europe for 9 years. I think I know a little more about how our system works than your friend. Yes, I'm older than 33 years, that's just the amount of time I've been working in the USA.

You obviously watched too many western movies with John Wayne. Our country is not like that. Did your friend see anyone get shot while he was here for his 6 months stint? I bet he never saw a gun during his entire visit here. I am old and the only guns I have seen are those on police officers, guards, my own, and those of my friends. I have never experienced any public shooting. Those are extremely rare events considering the quantity of guns we have in our country. Anyway, our gun ownership has nothing to do with this discussion so that's all I'm going to say for now.

I'm glad you don't like our country -- that will keep you on the other side of the border. We already have problems with too many foreigners wanting to come over here to experience the American Dream so knowing you don't like it makes that one less person. Thank you.

ReplyVote up (253)down (249)
Original comment

Your friend got a job in the states for half a year and you consider him some sort of expert on capitalism? Well, I've been working in the states for 33 years. I have also lived in Europe for 9 years. I think I know a little more about how our system works than your friend. Yes, I'm older than 33 years, that's just the amount of time I've been working in the USA.

You obviously watched too many western movies with John Wayne. Our country is not like that. Did your friend see anyone get shot while he was here for his 6 months stint? I bet he never saw a gun during his entire visit here. I am old and the only guns I have seen are those on police officers, guards, my own, and those of my friends. I have never experienced any public shooting. Those are extremely rare events considering the quantity of guns we have in our country. Anyway, our gun ownership has nothing to do with this discussion so that's all I'm going to say for now.

I'm glad you don't like our country -- that will keep you on the other side of the border. We already have problems with too many foreigners wanting to come over here to experience the American Dream so knowing you don't like it makes that one less person. Thank you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Eman Tsueg Rouy (1325 days ago)
Latest comment:

The American Dream - because you have to be asleep to believe it, buddy !!

ReplyVote up (270)down (234)
Original comment
Latest comment:

The American Dream - because you have to be asleep to believe it, buddy !!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1332 days ago)

try as you might, you and i and everyone reading this knows america is SHEIT.

My friend is not an expert in capitalism, he's just a witness on SHEIT ameirica.

Of course you're going to use your codger troll tactics to steer the conversation away from Picketty's book and talk about how NON SHEIT America is.

ReplyVote up (257)down (249)
Original comment

try as you might, you and i and everyone reading this knows america is SHEIT.

My friend is not an expert in capitalism, he's just a witness on SHEIT ameirica.

Of course you're going to use your codger troll tactics to steer the conversation away from Picketty's book and talk about how NON SHEIT America is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

You don't like capitalism but refuse or cannot backup your negative claims stating that all I'm trying to do is troll. Fine, so you don't like us and I am okay with that. Just don't try to justify it with your lies.

All of my comments were directed at content of this video. I did not read Picketty's book so I'm not going to make any comments on it. Sorry if you dislike me even more because of that but all I have to go by is the statements made in this video and that is what can educate you on.

ReplyVote up (225)down (239)
Original comment

You don't like capitalism but refuse or cannot backup your negative claims stating that all I'm trying to do is troll. Fine, so you don't like us and I am okay with that. Just don't try to justify it with your lies.

All of my comments were directed at content of this video. I did not read Picketty's book so I'm not going to make any comments on it. Sorry if you dislike me even more because of that but all I have to go by is the statements made in this video and that is what can educate you on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1332 days ago)

you can't educate sheit because all you do is troll.

you're a troll and that's your game.

You didn't read pickety's book and i understand that, but there are lots of reviews on the web LINK

Too bad your're too brainwashed to get it that democracy and capitalism don't go together; you can only have one and you choose capitalism. What a fuken troll codger banker you are!

did you brainwash yourself by listening to right wing extremist radio on your comute just like Noam's dad LINK ?

Stupid fuken codger troll.

ReplyVote up (194)down (230)
Original comment

you can't educate sheit because all you do is troll.

you're a troll and that's your game.

You didn't read pickety's book and i understand that, but there are lots of reviews on the web LINK

Too bad your're too brainwashed to get it that democracy and capitalism don't go together; you can only have one and you choose capitalism. What a fuken troll codger banker you are!

did you brainwash yourself by listening to right wing extremist radio on your comute just like Noam's dad LINK ?

Stupid fuken codger troll.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1332 days ago)

"Too bad your're too brainwashed to get it that democracy and capitalism don't go together; you can only have one and you choose capitalism. " To educate you a little more, the USA is a representative republic -- not a democracy. "A Representative Republic protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority, and is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, with elections providing the opportunity for change. "

Is your country a democracy? I doubt it. I bet you have a dictator or other representatives that vote on your behalf on the daily issues.

ReplyVote up (233)down (237)
Original comment

"Too bad your're too brainwashed to get it that democracy and capitalism don't go together; you can only have one and you choose capitalism. " To educate you a little more, the USA is a representative republic -- not a democracy. "A Representative Republic protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority, and is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, with elections providing the opportunity for change. "

Is your country a democracy? I doubt it. I bet you have a dictator or other representatives that vote on your behalf on the daily issues.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Clitoris (1332 days ago)

bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

that's the stupidest trollest thing i have ever heard. HAAAA HA HA HA HA!! where the fu*k do you think i live, CONGO?? you arrogant fascist codger troll , FU*K YOU!

AA hA ha HA HA HA HA!! america is not a democracy AA HA HA HA you fu*ken piece of sheit with your semantics aa ha ha ha.

I'll have you know that most european countries are either presidential republics or parliamentary republics, and both of this systems are based on democratc principles as WE ALL KNOW the USA is also.

SO FU*K YOU! YOU HAVE NO CASE! aaa ha ha ha ha.

ReplyVote up (232)down (219)
Original comment

bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

that's the stupidest trollest thing i have ever heard. HAAAA HA HA HA HA!! where the fu*k do you think i live, CONGO?? you arrogant fascist codger troll , FU*K YOU!

AA hA ha HA HA HA HA!! america is not a democracy AA HA HA HA you fu*ken piece of sheit with your semantics aa ha ha ha.

I'll have you know that most european countries are either presidential republics or parliamentary republics, and both of this systems are based on democratc principles as WE ALL KNOW the USA is also.

SO FU*K YOU! YOU HAVE NO CASE! aaa ha ha ha ha.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
What is Tencent?
What is Tencent?
Imagine the world if electricity was free
Imagine the world if electricity was free
Brexit, what next after divorce deal?
Brexit, what next after divorce deal?
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Free money for everybody? UBI explained.
Free money for everybody? UBI explained.