Are We Wasting Money? 

Get this guy on congress ASAP

Holy shit based

Full metal alchemist

Full metal alchemist

Yeah just bring back Alchemy

They think he’s saying to cut spending as in cut innovation and guns and tanks, but he literally just means cut all the bloat and stop letting themselves get fucked over by contracts and prices

Contract stuff is just wild. If the prices aren't juiced for corruption, I have literally no idea what they're so high for

@@joshuawhite9876 its a nice cycle. These companies take money, then "donate" it back to congress, who charge the average person more

I am not in favour of cutting military spending. I'm in favour of leaning up the military and spending more on R&D. R&D is truly how America keeps their military advantage.

@@mattbenz99 wdym? Our country spends triples china in military spending and is 9x of Russia. The reason we spend this much is the amount of waste, with people taking joyrides of 100m dollar jets. Then private contractors will come in, charge billions more than it would cost the military to do it themselves, bribe Congress into accepting everything they charge, and then give that money to the billionaires who own them.

The awesome thing is that government contracts are free to be filled by whoever wants them. If you find out a way to supply empty bushing bags to the military, you could literally become a millionaire.

Those bushings better be made of the highest quality Japanese 1000 Fold Steel to be worth $90,000 a bag

​@@Bagel920better be made of fucking forged titanium and diamond dust😂

@@tyler.walker cave johnson moment

@@SYLin-rs8ob The world needs more Cave Johnson’s

frfr 😩😩😤

damn. truth

Brandon "Thomas Malthus troc" Ewing

Do you mean how charities can sometimes only give like a cent of every euro and class that as charity

@@madnessman1520 that's sounds like a problem. What I was referring to is the ability for people (usually rich) to avoid taxes when selling real estate (usually homes) by creating something called a "charitable remainder trust". Or, at least that's what I remember it being called.

Yup. But I’m with Atrioc 1000000% on the idea of *something* needed to be done. Absolutely no reason for Sam Walton’s great great grandchildren to be billionaires for simply spawning out of the right vagina.

Europe has more intergenerational wealth than the US.

He's one unequal exchange from turning

Basically a social democrat

He's literally said "I do think the best economic system would be some kind of democratic socialism" iirc. But yes, for someone so into finance and marketing he is way further to the left, even if he isn't very political.

@2Links if it has socialism at the end, it means worker owns the capital. Social democrat is also a misleading word, but democratic socialist is always incorrect

@@Babigoldfish How is it incorrect?

We just need to build a solid infrastructure like the Texans and then get lucky in the draft with CJ Stroud

But OKC has hundreds of draft picks, US has none!

@@JushTv283 Texas does not have good infrastructure, and their cities are urban design nightmares, both functionally and aesthetically. My sister is moving out of Houston to CO this year

@@Kitajima2 my friend u did not get the joke

@@JushTv283 ohh my bad. I looked up CJ stroud. I got lost with the transition from NBA to NFL bc I don't watch football as much

I mean socialism is a pretty broad concept which encompasses some of the things proposed. Americans aren't brain broken because they don't know what is and isn't socialism they are brain broken because they view socialism as inherently bad.

​@@anoukk_ What makes socialism socialism is owning the means of production. Just having safety nets and taxation doesn't actually make a country socialist. People view socialism as inherently bad because we havent gotten a example of it actually working.

@@sordid_ "What makes socialism socialism is owning the means of production. " None of the used definition of socialism actually agree with this.

tbf all those things originate from socialist principles, people just are decontextualized and misinformed about the definitions. Like all the alt right and conservatives that get afraid of the word gender or pronoun without realizing those are regular old English terms for basic things that have nothing to do with poltics.

@@sordid_ "socialism is owning the means of production" is such a generalized surface level understanding that its not even first year poli-sci LMAO are you literally in highschool social studies class? its such a youtube commenter move to claim that "a lot of people" get it wrong only to provide a 11th grade understanding

As someone in the medical field, one big reason is because those countries get their medical research essentially for free. The US funds 50% of all medical research which other countries can just read a journal article about lol. Hospitals also don't have the huge profit margins people imagine; the reason they charge you specifically so much is because you likely have insurance. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who don't pay a cent while getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of meds and care.

​​​@@Prodigial Medical research is not medical practice. People around the world aren't getting medicine invented a century ago cheaper because they didn't pay to research it. It's also not like the rest of the world doesn't have the US exceptionalism to research things. But when pharmaceutical companies and other aspects of the medical industry make more money in the US than they do elsewhere it's no fucking surprise that they draw researchers to the US. But most importantly: you're judging research by money spent and not output, which will always favour the country with extortionate wealth to spend. There's bloat in US medical spending much like there is in the US military, judging the effectiveness by cost is fucking stupid. Secondly, it's not about the hospitals, it's about the tertiary industries like insurance, suppliers and pharmaceuticals who do have the most insane profit margins.

@@DNeonLamp This is so blatantly wrong I'm disappointed in the thumbs up. First off, I'm judging research in studies published, not in shekels spent. Second, the pharmaceutical companies charge more for meds here to recoup their research expenses. Other countries can make slight alterations to the drug in question (it is impossible to legally protect against this) and then can sell the same thing without the hundreds of millions spent on researching it. So, yeah, the world DOESN'T have the US exceptionalism when it comes to researching things; we fund and publish an overwhelming amount compared to them. There is definitely bloat, but the US does not get insane amounts of credit for what we've done for healthcare across the world. As far as effectiveness goes in medicine, if you have a LIFE THREATENING condition, your best odds of success are in America, cost aside. Our hospitals are better outfitted, doctors trained for longer, and no expense spared. The only reason health outcomes aren't better in the US is due to lack of primary care and a much "sicker" population (70% of our population is overweight or obese which causes diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other co-morbidities that physicians and hospitals in other nations don't encounter at half the rate). I could go on about this for hours; I wrote a thesis on this prior to medical school, but suffice to say that I know what I'm talking about here whereas you are talking in broad generalizations that everyone does when it comes to healthcare costs.

There is a Chinese saying that goes "Wealth never lasts 3 generations." I think you are extremely wrong when you say rich people are "royalty" because there is actually a massive amount of churn amongst rich people. At the moment, roughly 88-91% (depending on the study) of people with a net worth above 1 million dollars from 1900-2010 were self made, and by self made, I mean no inheritance or an inheritance under 10k-100k (again depends on the study). Now, what is genuinely incredible about this statistic is that this means that if most millionaires are self made and this is continuous, that means that the majority of people inheriting their money must lose it some how. Otherwise the math wouldn't make sense. I think people get way too caught up with worrying about a few very small rich families, but they miss the overall picture. Most people who inherit money are dogshit at managing it because they didn't earn it and don't understand the value. For this reason, I think it is a fair assumption that this is a self correcting problem. We don't need to tax rich children because they will blow their money anyways within 2 generations and the problem will be solved. Maybe a couple grow into the Walton's (Walmart), but the vast majority of people who inherit money won't end up like them.

@@mattbenz99Does the inheritance there only count direct money or does it include assets as well?

@@gamepro0167 Depends on the study, but generally it is the total value of all inherited assets. But keep in mind, often assets are split between more than 1 child. So if the home is worth 200k and they have 3 kids, the value gets split 3 ways and each one gets 66k before expenses.

Those websites aren't accurate. You played a video game. There is a well known economic phenomenon that shows that tax revenue doesn't scale linearly with tax rate. This is because the increase in taxes changes economic incentives and often leads to a decrease in revenue due to money flowing elsewhere to legally avoid the tax. This is why France actually saw an increase in tax revenue when they lowered their taxes about 2 decades ago.

Indie Games don't have big marketing budgets, so you're only going to find the stuff that is in some way special and noteworthy, meanwhile established AAA developers can put out the biggest piece of garbage and you'll still know about it. No Indie Publisher could have ever made Demon's Souls in 2009 or developed Titanfall 2 to put it out against its biggest competitors.

It’s because indie devs HAVE to make better games than the rich. If an indie dev makes a bad game, it ain’t going anywhere and that indie dev stays poor living with their parents and starving. If a rich person makes a bad game, it’s getting advertised by lots of money, and even if it ends up failing, the rich person is still rich. This goes for all fields, poorer people have to work harder just to survive while the rich skate by on their pre-existing wealth. Wealth is anti-competitive. It’s just a super small percent of poors may become rich by luck, so everyone just accepts it thinking they will be the one who strikes it when they won’t.

@hexcodeff6624 you're right, they couldn't. Major companies get complacent though and release the same shit every yearBut indies come up with those one month hit games that make major companies try to come up with their own ideas or copy-paste

@@WaifuEndMyLaifu Yeah, cause there's been a soulsborne game every year since 2009 and people have been drowning in titanfall games lately. I'm not here to defend all AAA developers, I just think you're exaggerating the quality of the indie scene.

​@@WaifuEndMyLaifu literally google "steam annual game releases by developer type 2023". Indie games accounted for 99% of games released on steam, while AAA and AA games COMBINED counted for the rest. Out of the roughly 14k games released 13,800 were indie, and 181 AAA+AA, if we say 2023 had in total 100 AAA games, Id bet you $100 that on average a AAA game was SUBSTANTIALLY better than an average indie game. Obviously out of 13,800 piles of shit theres bound to be 1 good game like an undertale or stardew valley, but good indies are the exception.

I like the idea but I have some questions about it. What happens if the government want to buy something that doesn't exist. Like a naval base? Or a new stealth fighter design? Or what if they want to purchase something that has no market rate like MREs or hand grenades? Also, what method do can we use to determine whether the cost isn't artificially inflated when there is no market rate to compare it to?

@@SYLin-rs8ob Clearly it can not catch everything but its a big start, as far as MRE's just because they do not sell them to the public does not mean the products they contain have nothing to compare to.

@@SYLin-rs8ob I mean your standard MRE or grenade does have a marketrate, but theoretically you could require open and transparent books of the military supplier and limit mark-up % to a fair rate and increase accountability with those responsible.

did you even watch the video man the US is desperate for money rn

Run this through chatgpt for and ask it to summarize your post in 150 words or less

These tax havens exist because our tax laws allow them too. If we had new tax laws, the loopholes could potentially close. Essentially we created the problem of tax havens, and that can be remedied.

Life insurance aside, I think as for intergenerational wealth, it should be limited to a maximum of 100 years median gdp per capita with 4% inflation built in. So if someone has 100 million to inherit, first check if 40% still leaves them above 100 years of national median. I can still see loopholes here which probably can be fixed, it could also probably be fine tuned, hey maybe you want 200 years of median instead. That would be like 15 million maximum

he quite literally explains this 5:06

@@ItsActuallyTJ_ yep, pull the trigger on that comment. still, he says that their should be a direct tax just to give people the UBI. As he explains, it has to be a direct tax, without it UBI becomes an inflation engine. And I dont belive in a goverment that will use money in a direct way, just to transfer it from point Wealthy to Point everybody. I get he is talking about automatization, but still its just about big companies that produce things to the normal folks. Historically this never worked.

Some people use socialism to just means policies to meet social goals, so, ig it's socialism if you look it at that way.

Based on

youre a prime example why america is so far behind in economic support peopel keep voting in people who make short term gains then we realize afterword's how awful they were and how much damage they did like Reagen Its not your fault but dont just think of the immediate benefits because thats how you get a terrible system (though your kinda fucked for choices this elction but please dont vote trump hes just going to make life worse for you guys)

@@Watburnt thinking long term doesn't pay this months bills.

@coachmcguirk6297 No president will pay your bills for you you're still gonna be broke under any president that's why voting for one who will actually try and put good bills to support people with no money in place are important to vote in

ur not printing any money so there isnt inflation

@@jakebrown1066 but more money is being spent because dollars are more equitably distributed. Lower income people would be more likely to spend the money from ubi which would increase the velocity of money, meaning money would be spent and circulated at a greater rate This could drive an increase in prices because more goods are being purchased even though the amount of cash in circulation remained the same. If you look up velocity of money and inflation you will probably find a way better phrased explanation of my reasoning

@ManifestedMadness The middle class used to he way bigger than it is now and the economy was fine.

@@jakebrown1066 *I wanted to clarify I believe UBI is a good idea, just was thinking about a way it could potentially increase inflation. Because rich people inherently spend a smaller proportion of their money on goods such as necessities for life, when the same money is in the hands of people with less wealth it just is likely to be spent on larger proportions imo

OK fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=ek0K Interesting...