CNBC went ahead and interviewed a Facts Machine and thought we wouldn't notice! What a brilliant woman, she clearly knows her stuff and presents well calculated arguments!
'Privatize the gains, socialize the losses' What I never understood about the US is the insistance on 'pure' capitalism, but when it comes to bailing out or helping out economically struggling companies, the government's money is suddenly an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Because the tax payer in those situation suffer more if those entities collapse It should also be noted when there is a ‘bail out’ its almost always a loan and or a purchase of shares where the ‘tax payer’ (which ironically the institutions you complain about are as well) benefit from selling at a premium.
Can we please have a whole series from her? Refreshing, holistic perspectives (not just government or tax payer or private sector perspectives, but going a step above all to think about how to create value for ALL). Quite insightful!
Nice to hear exploitation of the tax-payer called out with logic. I think people would get behind “taxes” if they were called “dividends” and paid either to research projects or directly to their bank account.
they kind of mentioned that, i.e. DARPA research for GPS and the internet. And then the companies use these and we "tax" them. But of course, businesses get to offset expenditures from their income tax, while everyday people don't, which is obviously a bit dumb.
No American should have less than $1.5 million in thier bank account regardless what kind of work you choose to do. Companies are stealing our lifelong buying power through wage depletion!
I began investing at the age of 34, primarily utilizing my hard work and dedication. Now at the age of 42, I am delighted to share that my passive income exceeded $100k for the first time in a single month. This advice is truly valuable, so don't hesitate to take action. Remember, it's not about achieving wealth quickly, but rather about building wealth consistently and persistently.
This is superb! Information, as a noob it gets quite difficult to handle all of this and staying informed is a major cause, how do you go about this, are you a pro investor?
Through closely monitoring the performance of my portfolio, I have witnessed a remarkable growth of $508k in just the past two quarters. This experience has shed light on why experienced traders are able to generate substantial returns even in lesser-known markets. It is safe to say that this bold decision has been one of the most impactful choi
that's impressive!, I could really use the expertise of this advisors , my portfolio has been down bad....who’s your financial advisor or coach, do you mind hooking me up?
I've actually been thinking of reaching a portfolio-adviser, my 401k and stocks been losing everything it's gained since 2019, mind if I looked-up this one coach you use?
Honestly, How can I be part of this project I earnestly hope to build a strong financial future I'm interested to take part, who's the person behind your success?
It would be TERRIBLE for the wealthy if the majority of voters had any bloody idea about anything remotely significant at all. :) Not that voting really matters, anyhow; the rich get what they want, what they pay for, and what they influence... and that is EVERYTHING.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat indeed. to be fair, if I would have been financially nice and stable life family since graduation, I wouldn't even known or learn the ideas in the video.
Medicines and official drugs from pharmaceutical companies are integral to the health system, which is a fundamental responsibility of the government and state. Providing access to these medications is not just a service but an obligation of the public sector to ensure the health and well-being of its citizens. This responsibility should be fulfilled as part of the broader commitment to public health.
The core issue, shaping the government's entire approach to the economy, is its failure to prioritize its primary function: addressing political concerns that should guide economic policies. Essential goals like eradicating hunger, eliminating poverty, and addressing misery must be the foundation for all economic measures. The government’s management of its finances, institutions, and state-owned enterprises should be driven by these principles. Consequently, private enterprises must also align with this purpose, not just their unique projects, but with the broader goal of serving society. Profit should not outweigh the benefit and advancement of civilization.
Complicating something very simple. If we want wealth distribution, each one of us should charge much much more for their service (aka work). Shift the mentality from "I get paid to work" to "I charge XYZ for my work". That's the only thing that's needed.
Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, it’s absurd that we aren’t addressing the issue of how certain substances with potential benefits for the mind and spirit are still illegal. These drugs, which are associated with counterculture and alternative thought, were banned because they empowered youth and challenged conventional systems of control. Instead of acknowledging their benefits and making them legal and accessible in their pure form, the state continues to prohibit them based on misleading justifications. This not only compromises the quality of these substances but also leads to unnecessary legal consequences. Such actions don’t protect the public but rather perpetuate harm and inhibit progress.
She is right. We invest. Then pay extra. Sometimes thrice. I was thinking about it with the defense industry. The way it is now? It would be like you telling me to build you a car. So I build it with your money and resources. I pay myself, and buddies. I should just give you the car at this point, right? Not in America! Then say it is finished, but you have to buy it off me now, and I own the rights to any upgrades for the future. I'm going to charge you a premium for many of the parts, and you aren't allowed to use anyone else. It is ridiculous.
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a Expertise to invest with. I myself am guided by Mrs. Patricia Vesely, a widely known crypto consultant.
@@D4PPZ456 Sounds more like corporatocracy. US doesn't even have a damn free market, esp since the free market is exactly what big monopolies dislike. Makes complete sense that they would lobby for anti-compete laws.
Politicians don't get a ribbon ceremony for maintaining a system. That why they wait for it to break and attend the "new" infrastructure ribbon cutting ceremony.
The situation has reversed in a troubling way: the public is supposed to benefit from government investments in the private sector, but now they’re losing out twice. They not only fail to see the benefits from such investments but are also exploited. For example, companies like Apple already possess cutting-edge technology but choose to release incremental updates rather than the full potential all at once. This staged release strategy maximizes profit, but it’s unethical because it prioritizes profit over genuine advancement and innovation. The public system loses because it gets nothing substantial in return, and instead, the state uses its power to infringe on citizens' privacy in exchange for supporting private companies. Thus, the public ends up in a lose-lose situation: it’s exploited by private practices and has its privacy compromised by state actions that are meant to benefit these companies.
For example, I’ve recognized that both private and public sectors exploit my privacy, so I’ve decided to take control of how my privacy is used. I manage my privacy in a way that compels these companies to handle it according to my terms. It’s important for me to communicate this to these companies because their current handling of my privacy is irresponsible. If they are aware of my privacy, it’s only because I’ve previously expressed my objections.
We must primarily address the fact that current enrichment practices in our society are often criminal. For instance, we’ve witnessed technology companies amassing billions by setting their own rules, which often violate the laws of the countries where they operate. These companies prioritize their own benefit over the protection of privacy and civil rights. For example, while it’s illegal to open personal letters, these companies freely exploit private communications under the guise of propaganda or other justifications. This blatant disregard for privacy and civil rights, conducted with government complicity, amounts to a form of trafficking information rather than legitimate business practices. Companies like Facebook have become wealthy not just through advertisements but by trading in personal data.
When high-tech resources are funded by public finances, it's because the state seeks something in return-specifically, access to private data. This access involves breaking the very laws meant to protect privacy and civil rights. Such practices, conducted as a business, are indeed criminal. If the state engages in these actions, it should redirect the profits from these enterprises to fund government projects aimed at solving social issues and ensuring the protection of civil rights and humanitarian laws globally.
If she acknowledges money is largely neutral (that is, printing money doesn't solve anything) and that the Keynesian fiscal multiplier is largely at best 1.0 if not less than one (that is, government money does not expand the economy and may even harm it) I might be interested in reading her. I suspect however she's largely parroting economic thought from 70 to 80 years ago.
Really there are three actors in technology advances. There is private financial capital, public financial capital, and individual intellectual capital. The system needs all three to work and each are entitled to a proportional return. I am a member of the third group which too often is crowded out in discussion of the topic. If I work harder and smarter than average, the public is not entitled to half of what I produce. My liability is the cost of education, or at most the average productivity of people with similar education.
If we did support the public to eliminate the personnel liability of a worth while education, all three actors in technology advances would see major improvements. Along with the public just generally making better day to day life decisions. Education is the best investment a society can make. Otherwise, it is about being born into certain advantages and role models, not hard work to rise above an even playing field.
If this woman thinks that the pharmaceutical industry takes no risk, she has never sat across a deposition table from an ambulance chasing lawyer who is seeking billions of $ from them because they produced and sold an FDA approved medicine. Take the lawyers out of medicine and you'll see prices go down. A friend of mine who is a general surgeon paid $60,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums and no insurance company ever paid a cent in any claim against him. That's an example of one of the reasons why health care is so expensive.
All of the successes of public sector research mentioned in this video came when government was only 20% of GDP and we weren’t running huge deficits. Private sector business growth further developed and marketed those technologies. Today government is 40% of GDP and outspends its revenue. Private sector growth is severely limited as a result and the public sector is unsustainable. We pay people not to work with money printed out of thin air so we have to import our labor-intensive goods from counties like China with oppressive regimes and humanitarian issues. Too bad we can’t get China to build our houses too.
She is just a wobbly, bubbly mass of catchphrases and gratuitious public and pvt sector bashing. But even she knows the education system that enabled the likes of her to rise to the top is being burnt to the ground by the wealthiest entrepreneurs working along with a newly entrenched professional class .. people like her.
I believe she is referring to how GDP is measured. The baby sitter is paid for a service so it is included in the GDP. But once a person marries the baby sitter then they aren't getting paid for providing the child care, so it is no longer included in GDP. (If they still paid their spouse in money, then I believe it would still be part of GDP).
my dentist still, going on 20 plus years, always messes with me when I have the "laughing gas" and asks me what I want to be when I grow up, then disagrees and says "nah, you want to be a rockstar". I mean I get the purpose is a dull joke to make sure the gas isn't too strong and such, but it was never funny and still isn't funny despite being buzzed on nitrous lol
First, businesses are not created to stop climate change, make people feel good, or think how can I create value differently. Profit for Purpose really? Government does not create wealth. Government does not produce. This person I can guarantee has never ran a business and does not have a clue of the true business climate. She is talking more of an ideology and a feel good approach to business. Businesses are not created to feel good. They are created to make money and the soul purpose is profit. There does need to be some regulation and controls in place set by the government yes for safety and health reasons of course. There is this thing called over reach and our government has been doing that for years. Government used to be for the all people. Government was never supposed to pick winners and losers.
Businesses are people, like you and I if we choose to open a business we should be looked at fairly just like the rules behind fair lending. It is small and medium sized businesses that create the jobs for over 60-70% of the jobs in this country. Through regulation the government is supposed to be neutral creating a level playing field for all. Not to pick and choose based on your political and ideological leanings. Again the driving factor behind any that opens a business is profit. Has been that way for millennia.@@MrRedberd
`Government does not create wealth` - this is factually incorrect. If you look at how gdp is calculated, much of that is actually government spending. `Profit for Purpose really?` - why not. Why would you want to be a mindless and soulless consumer? `Government used to be for the all people` - that is simply not true. Do you know the history of America or Europe? Either way, if you want the government to work for everyone, why would you be against "profit with purpose". `This person I can guarantee has never ran a business` - perhaps use those google search skills. You might be impressed what you find when you escape your own ideological bubble.
1:07 "climate problems" yeah. "we" as humans have been boiling the oceans since the 70s (suspiciously when monetary inflation became unhinged) but deaths because of natural causes have declined by more than 90%
Rich gotta rich. Poor gotta suffer and serve. That's how it's been for thousands of years. Stay in your lane, and accept it; there's nothing you can do about it. Not unless you're--heh--wealthy, powerful, connected, influential, etc. In which case, there's NO POSSIBLE WAY you'd want to change anything, lol! #DUH
She did not mention the risk we have taken to reach our goals, to be successful, rather than income to be distributed evenly, her idea just simply wrong. We have to take care of ourself first, not everybody.
An economist speaking about economics must first run a business. If she only had run a business while making these comments, you would have asked where she got her degree in economics from. Try to be at least a little bit charitable.
“Only real jobs” ? You don’t have a clue what other profession are out there. How do you think you get food on your table and hold a cell phone tablet? Smh
