Bureaucracy Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #15 

Catie gang 20 minutes till

@@MagnusKicks I finished my final question with five seconds to spare, but it told me I hadn't completed the section and now I have to retake the whole thing. I'm crying.

currently studying bc I'm taking the retake tomorrow

Same!

+Sketchi Same, I feel like i know everything I need, but i'm worried i'm missing something.

+Sketchi same, but half of these videos teach ab stuff i havent learned, so ive skipped like 6

Did you pass?

yes I did, thanks for asking haha! :D

i have it on thursday yikes

***** or my favourite, Rage against the politically correct machine. Bulls and gender non-specific bovines on parade!

rally around the family with a pocket full of...... opinions

I would buy that shirt.

I know, right? It meets my desire to be precise while also acknowledging flaws in our society.

Raina Ramsay I would definitely buy that shirt.

Indubitably Zara That's 3 guaranteed sales! How many preorders before Crash Course will print something?

Raina Ramsay We should.

PrimevalDragon The Illuminati machine. Its real.

CardsNHorns04 How so, Cards? I keep hearing more and more on this subject, but I don't understand much about it.

mama maus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#Illuminati

mama maus when ever you deal with a buracrat you always lose you time or monney or both all they do is take

mama maus is kind of like the diference betweena a democrat wich takes your money and spends it or a Republican that takes your money and spends it but pretends to feel bad for it

Ayden MacKenzie thanks fam. Only an hour until I have to take it :/

Tomorrow for me (it was delayed)!

Salomon Flamenco So much yes.

Salomon Flamenco Let's hope they get a philosopher who knows what he's talking about. After all, they might need to separate Continental from Analytic Philosophy.

Like you haven't said that enough -_-

Liam Gurney well guess what just started

Go rose

Yep. The EPA. Lucky that one's plastic.

Eagle I'm gonna go shot an eagle and watch as you's can't do anything about it

ImmaterialDigression We pay for it with............... Ugh, you either STILL pay for shoes, or you pay for it in your taxes....... I hate this idea now lol, it made me think about money leaving my wallet.

Keith Winget Well we pay taxes anyway, I'd reassign money rather than raise taxes. Would you rather spend money invading other countries or giving tax cuts to big business OR have bowling alleys. This is the choice I offer you! :P

ImmaterialDigression Honestly...... I hope someday I'll be able to have the 100%(I'd settle for 80% or 90% even)factual truth about what's going on in the world and with my country so I could actually have money reassignment opinions backed up by real facts. The reality is that's never going to happen. We basically rely on government for that, because they get the best information feed. Sure, they are massively politically motivated, but the bigger problem is that even THEY do not get 100% of the picture. Even if they did, there's still the possibility of making the wrong decision even with the best of intentions and the world's best experts(I'm definitely not saying they are, either). TLDR: Simple thing like a bowling alley appropriations bill taking money away from enforcement of.....idk....marijuana law ;) I could see that working out :P It'd be at the state level though.

Head on a military base of any decent size.

Solomon Finn lol

Only reason Wasn’t not failing civics until this

Brandon Shaffer Yes, also politically correct. Now say it with me War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength

***** UPS was rated as the most expensive way to send something in the United States, while FedEx and USPS are neck and neck the cheapest. The main thing that people seem to forget is that USPS does compete. It gets no tax dollars to support itself, so it stays open by making money like every one else. I think it was Forbes (don't quote me on which magazine) that put those three against each other and USPS won out because they generally have faster shipping times. And they also have the lowest rate of damaging packages. So there's that lol

OSheaPunk OOOOOOooo GGOOTT EM!

The Epic Dougiebear The entire infrastructure that UPS relies on to make deliveries was created by the USPS.

OSheaPunk Just like how Obama said the internet was created by the government. Lmfaooooo oh man.. that's hilarious.

***** They privatized years ago theyre a joke- In the 80s and 90s- but suddenly Usps jokes in 2000 comedies dont happen anymore. In my experience havin used both- Theyre comparable and if safety is a concern then Usps is the better option. like its said Ups willl Just leavee it there. something that doesnt hurt me much because I have a raised porch with a noisy screen door and my dads always hom.

smeggie42 May I ask, do you have the direct quote of the rule? I want to read it to see if they could potentially read it that way

smeggie42 The Russia ammo issue was likely more due to with Federal trade sanctions than anything to do with it being cheap.

James A Clouder check out 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(C) (17) (A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm. (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. (C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

this site sums it all up well. www.ammoland.com/2015/02/atf-framework-logic-would-ban-additional-ammo-beyond-m855-as-armor-piercing-ammo/#axzz3ZvfI08yR

I am a stick You made it this far without realizing it wasn't John Green?

i dont know who he is either, but he seems tired, or at least trying hard to keep up with a fast pace of speaking he's not normally used to, just for the sake of keeping up with how these videos normally go, probably cos of time constraints to gain retention time, damn RU-vid bureaucracies...

Thanks for reminding everyone about ECON 101. It isn't particularly novel or interesting to say "the free market punishes for poor quality product..." nor is it always the way that the world actually works. Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the real-world events that the book brought to light were largely where food regulations started - and for good reason. Companies were selling incredibly poor-quality meat, and most people didn't have other options, therefore the market couldn't correct for it. Think about the ratings agencies that played a role in the 2008 financial crisis, and tell me that government regulations are always unnecessary.

Excellent example. The SEC regulations stipulate that there can only be 3 which the SEC must approve. Then regulations say that pension plans and the like must use ratings issued by those ratings agencies. The agencies have a captive audience and they therefore pay no price for making mistakes because they face no competition and can't lose customers. If the ratings agencies had their reputations and livelihoods on the line (which they didn't, thanks to the government), they wouldn't have issued those ratings on securities they didn't understand. It wasn't a market, there was no competition. On top of that, the ratings agencies and the banks were VERY heavily regulated before the crash. Those regulators watched and approved everything those banks did and it did nothing to prevent the crash. Why is nobody blaming the regulators? Whenever anything goes wrong, they act like they couldn't have prevented it. If you give the regulators and ratings agencies a pass and say "well, nobody knew before but we all know now so let's move forward," that's fair enough, but why wouldn't you give that same pass to the banks? I draw multiple possible conclusions from this. Government regulations create problems of their own and the regulators are no better at foreseeing previously unknown problems than the markets are.

+UserNameAnonymous One thing I think that gets all to easily overlooked in the "current model" vs free market economics discussion is the necessity to compare like to like. I have seen a lot of debate over this topic & the one thing I have regularly noticed is that proponents of free market economics argue the theoretical ideals of how free market economics SHOULD operate vs the real world implementation of the current structure. This is important because if you were to compare the theoretical ideal of how the current structure SHOULD operate to how it actually DOES operate in reality, you will notice a vast disparity. The same rule therefore logically would apply to free market economics, especially once you factor in the human nature element. Once a concept transitions from theory to practical application, there is a certain degree of change in the actual outcome. This rule applies almost universally with varying different degrees of change. Let's take the age old debate over minimum wage for example. Free market economists claim that the minimum wage prices some workers out of the market & pushes many businesses to replace paid workers with automation & that eliminating the minimum wage will grant the employer & prospective employee more bargaining power when entering into a mutually voluntary agreement of work for wages. Granted, there is a good chunk of truth to that, but you need to flesh out the theory a bit more to get a better scope of the issue. So the theory dictates that if a worker starts out in an unskilled entry level position for low wages, they can use that as an opportunity to develop skills, build their resume & use that as bargaining leverage when seeing advanced employment. It presumes that workers that are more skilled & qualified can reasonably bargain for a higher wage & that employers will be willing to pay those higher wages for the higher qualified workers. In theory & to some extent in practical application, it works that way under the current structure. However, let's implement this in a theoretical test environment. Now granted, yes I know we are still in the realm of theory, but I think this will provide some much needed insight. Let's presume that established corporations A, B & C, now no longer encumbered by minimum wage laws decide to reduce their wages across the board by 50%, funneling the extra revenue into their profit margins. Now the free market theory dictates that in a free market, those workers can reject that employer & go to another one that offers better wages & the employers will suffer due to the loss of their workforce. However, that implies that there is a vast pool of available jobs just waiting for someone to come along & scoop them up. Currently, with unemployment being as much of an issue as it is already, the presumption of sufficient job openings in general, let alone at better wages, being available for this massive influx of job seekers looking for better wages is unreasonable. The reality is, if there are no open jobs at better wages for those workers to hop into, they have the choice of remaining at their current employer at the lower wages & just deal with it, or take on the risk of no income at all for an indeterminate span of time, until they can obtain a position at a better pay scale. & since gaps in employment, the volume of job seekers to available jobs & other such factors play a significant role in the value of the worker to the prospective employer, this is a considerably high risk, especially for those workers that are living paycheck to paycheck. This is a key area where theory breaks down & real world implications reshape the actual economical structure. Now it could be argued that many of those workers can instead choose to create their own jobs & start their own business. This again is not very realistic because it requires an initial expenditure of capitol, which most simply do not have, and the ability to either become profitable overnight, which most businesses are not, & the ability to be self sustaining until it is profitable, which typically takes at least a year even if the new business owner is able to capitalize on the right market & has the business sense to structure his business well enough to draw enough business away from their established competition enough to at least be cash solvent. Now this might be attainable for a few of those affected workers, but for the vast majority, the reality will be they will stay at their current job at the lower wages because unless companies D, E & F, all open their doors & say "Hey workers of companies A, B & C. Come work for us & we will pay you what you used to make", sticking with the lower wages is their only reasonable option. Now let's examine the theory of Companies D, E & F doing just that. Let's presume they see companies A, B & C slash their staff wages & think to themselves, "Hey. If we offer their workers the same wages they were making before, we can scoop up most of their workers." Well what would be their motivation? They are a business after all, & the primary purpose of business is to make money. So what would be the goal of expanding their workforce at higher wages, especially if they are not in the process of expanding? Well one possibility is, let's presume they were banking on the notion that if given the opportunity, enough of companies A, B & C's workforce would leave rendering those companies with insufficient workers to remain productive, which might cause their stock value to spiral low enough that they can be simply bought out by the other companies. However, if companies A, B & C are able to find workers willing to work for the lower wages to replace the ones that left, which is especially easy in an economy flush with workers all competing for a small pool of jobs, that renders that move pointless. I mean if a worker went to company E & applied for a job at $10 an hour, was rejected & then applied at company A for $5 an hour, work at $5 an hour is better than no work at $0 an hour. That would leave companies D, E & F with a surplus idle workforce at higher wages, eating into their profits while adding no additional value. Another scenario that I argue is more realistic would be, if the workers, left with no better options stay at companies A, B & C, those companies would not only have larger profits due to lower workforce costs, but additionally would perform better in the stock market as the increase in profits would increase their market value & their value with shareholders. This would set a precedent where Companies S, B & C were able to slash their workers wages to the bone with no adverse effects. Companies D, E & F would be more likely to take notice, observe the financial gains of their competitors & the lack of any repercussions, & follow suit. This not only achieves the same ends of benefitting the business, but also does so without the pitfalls & risks of trying to poach the workforce of the competition in the hopes that it will de-value the competition enough to acquire them. Especially when you expand this out on a broader scale & factor in the ratios of which businesses cut wages vs those that keep them stationary or increase them. Since the majority of businesses currently favor paying their workers as little as possible rather than higher wages, (aside from upper management), it would be unreasonable to presume that this trend would change in a free market. Additionally, when it comes to barganing power for wages, if the value of say... An Engineer was reduced to half it's value in the open market, the worker's leverage for asking for wages will be affected commensorately. Now mind you, I'm not exactly arguing in favor of, or against free market economics, I personally believe that there are some ideas that those from the free market side propose that have merit, but an entirely free market structure is honestly unrealistic. However, the point that I am trying to make is to highlight where theoretical ideals unravel when you go beyond the "in a perfect world, this is how it theoretically should happen" & account for real world factors.

I’m just interested in government, politics and how things work. It’s rather important.

Emile Bichelberger i could not possibly care less

Nick Sexton Yea I can see that, just before we part ways forever. You might be interested in the show Yes Minister.