Bar stool economics

[Heywood]

Please take the time to watch both videos in order before commenting.

The argument:





The critique:





One issue with the critique I have is that the economist implies that the rich benefit more from government services than the poor. I don't agree with this implication and feel the opposite is true.

[Brian37]

Translation.........."There are no other economic views in the world except the ones I like, therefore everyone else is wrong except me".

Get this through your head. There is not one economic view, there are several. Economics in reality are NEVER "My way or the highway". Economies that work the best are mixed and not lopsided.

You do not get to decide by yourself for everyone else how our economy works.

[Heywood]

Translation.........."There are no other economic views in the world except the ones I like, therefore everyone else is wrong except me".

Get this through your head. There is not one economic view, there are several. Economics in reality are NEVER "My way or the highway". Economies that work the best are mixed and not lopsided.

You do not get to decide by yourself for everyone else how our economy works.

Unlike you Brian37, when I see a video that supports my world veiw....I take the time to view a critique of it.

I'm not a zombie like you.

Did you even take the time to watch both videos or did you feel you could contribute to this thread with a simple attack against me. I don't mind attacks....but if your are going to attack something. Don't waste your time by attacking me...nobody cares....attack one of the videos.....or defend one of the videos.

Don't be a douchebag....be a good citizen and engage in debate about issues....not people you dislike.

The main take away from the argument video is that when a tax cut occurs the rich will benefit the most because the rich pay the most in taxes. The critique never really addresses this.

[Brian37]

Robert Reich, ECONOMIST. COSTCO limits CEO pay, pays higher wages even to part time employees, allows unions.Moo Cluck Moo starts 14per hour. Billionaire Nick Hanauer "More money in workers pockets is a win win for both worker and business" and "We do not create demand, workers do".

Now those people above and the companies I mentioned are not poor.

You are no different than an apologist arguing for a holy book "You just don't understand"

Again, your problem is you ran into someone unwilling to blindly swallow elaborate bullcrap.

You do not get to decide by yourself for the rest of us how OUR economy works.

[Heywood]

Robert Reich, ECONOMIST. COSTCO limits CEO pay, pays higher wages even to part time employees, allows unions.Moo Cluck Moo starts 14per hour. Billionaire Nick Hanauer "More money in workers pockets is a win win for both worker and business" and "We do not create demand, workers do".

Now those people above and the companies I mentioned are not poor.

You are no different than an apologist arguing for a holy book "You just don't understand"

Again, your problem is you ran into someone unwilling to blindly swallow elaborate bullcrap.

You do not get to decide by yourself for the rest of us how OUR economy works.

What does Costco have to do with income tax rates? I addressed your complaints about Walmart and your praises for Costco in another thread. You ignored it.

Instead of having a cogent argument about the issue of this thread....you attempt to change the subject. But your doing it stupidly cause if you wish to talk about Costco...I will spread you ass all over the street like I did in the other thread.

[Brian37]

Give it up. You are not dealing with gullible people here. The past 30 years has been trickle up economics. You are not going to sell your garbage here.

[Surgenator]

Did you really watch the two videos Heywood? The critique quickly shows how the the bar analogy is a false representation of our tax system. And your counter is " I don't agree with this implication and feel the opposite is true." No one cares how you feel about the topic. If you want to say an the economist is wrong, provide evidence.

[Chad32]

Pandering to the rich has caused a great depression, and a great recession. I'd say it's best for the economy to keep them on a tight leash. If they leave because they're only making millions instead of billions, then someone else will fill the gap.

[Heywood]

Did you really watch the two videos Heywood? The critique quickly shows how the the bar analogy is a false representation of our tax system. And your counter is " I don't agree with this implication and feel the opposite is true." No one cares how you feel about the topic. If you want to say an the economist is wrong, provide evidence.

Yes I did watch both videos...and in the interest of fair debate, I thought I would choose two videos(of many) that best outlined both positions. I am not a minimalist or a Brian37 who purpose in life is to parrot one position and one position only. I don't mind examining an argument from multiple points of view.

The conclusion of the argument video is that the reason the rich get the biggest benefit when there is a tax cut....is because they pay the most in taxes in the first place.

The critique video....while making some valid points....does not show the conclusion made by the argument video is false. The critique video does a good job of showing that there are a lot more nuances to our tax system them the argument video leads to you believe.....it however does not show these nuances...when considered....lead to a different conclusion. That conclusion being the rich benefit the most from any tax cut....because they pay the most in taxes in the first place.

[Surgenator]

Did you really watch the two videos Heywood? The critique quickly shows how the the bar analogy is a false representation of our tax system. And your counter is " I don't agree with this implication and feel the opposite is true." No one cares how you feel about the topic. If you want to say an the economist is wrong, provide evidence.

Yes I did watch both videos...and in the interest of fair debate, I thought I would choose two videos(of many) that best outlined both positions. I am not a minimalist or a Brian37 who purpose in life is to parrot one position and one position only. I don't mind examining an argument from multiple points of view.

The conclusion of the argument video is that the reason the rich get the biggest benefit when there is a tax cut....is because they pay the most in taxes in the first place.

The critique video....while making some valid points....does not show the conclusion made by the argument video is false. The critique video does a good job of showing that there are a lot more nuances to our tax system them the argument video leads to you believe.....it however does not show these nuances...when considered....lead to a different conclusion. That conclusion being the rich benefit the most from any tax cut....because they pay the most in taxes in the first place.

I recommend that you don't assume min or Brian don't listen to other opinions. It's an ad-hominem attack.

You missed the point of the critique when they talk about % amount while the howtheworldworks video was using totals.

Also, the economist said most of these rich people don't pay any taxes at all. So the really poor people and the rich guy would pay nothing if we use the bar example.