Robert Reich seems a politician who cosplays as an economist. Airlines are another example of cronyism. The deregulation under Reagan was not to zero. The FAA still plays a massive role in the aviation industry, making it so that the cost of compliance makes it very difficult for new entries to arise. Exactly what you said: reduction in the number of airlines appears to be at least partly because government regulation makes new firms difficult, if not impossible to arise. Take a look at what it takes to get Part 121 certification (the rules regarding scheduled flights for sale). Take a look at the pilot licensing requirements. Even a commercial pilot can't offer services in their own airplane without first getting either a Part 121 operators certificate or a Part 135 operators certificate (required for unscheduled chartered flights). It's insanely expensive, time consuming, and requires an army of lawyers to confirm compliance. And even then it's still subject to the whims of the regulators. This is why there will never be an Uber for aviation. Despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of small airplanes sitting idle most of the time.
@@JohnDorian-j7x sure but the point is that the "deregulated" airlines aren't fully deregulated as the video suggests. Also fwiw it is legal in its entirety to fly any passengers for any reason. What's illegal is getting paid to fly them. Safety is not the reason the rules exist.
20:21 in his defense the government has giving money to bail out airlines. I personally think we should let them go bankrupt. If a company fails, the government should not help
It just goes to show that an industry such as the airlines is already quasi-public, and there lies the crux of many problems in America. Nothing is just straight up public or private, but always a mix of the two.
countries DO NOT "trade". People do. A farmer in Bolivia grows coffee. He sells it to Folgers. There was no "trade" between Bolivia and the US. When I bought a Honda, there was no "trade" between Japan and USA involved. Just me exercising my preference for quality and "trading" my money for a car.
@@UnorthodoxKnoxYour comment is devoid of coherency. That's like saying a bridge trades because they allow cars to cross it from one side to another to transfer goods.
@@darincarter4744 though the sound doesn't exist on itself, you can pronounce it the way "Heigh ho" is pronounced in Snow White - without the O in the end. I also could probably transcribe it as "yh". If this all makes sense to you
He can pronounce his OWN name any way he likes and it is 100% correct for him to do so. You are 100% wrong if you try to tell someone else that they are pronouncing their OWN name wrong. On the other hand, Reich is 100% wrong when he tries to spin tales about the economy because the economy is not (unlike one’s OWN name) controlled by just one person but instead is something over which we all play a part.
The root of the problem is not monopolies but government's ability to treat some people/groups differently than others. Soime examples of unequal treatment are: industry subsidies, foreign aid, narrow laws that only affect certain groups, unequal benefits in health care, government education (a real monopoly), unequal taxation, unequal welfare benefits, government officials being treated in special ways e.g. setting their own salaries and other special protections like secret service, forced union memberships, unequal crime punishment including plea deals. This government discrimination is a violation of the 14th amendment "equal protection" and it provides the incentive for corrupt bribes and vote buying (loan forgiveness, FDIC coverage beyone $250k for some and not others). There is an easy fix for government corruption: have the courts enforce equal protection under the law and throw out discriminatory laws.
1) as always, there are gross people liberals like yourself attacking unions. 2) it is okay for the government to treat people differently as someone who is doctor has a more credibility than some person claiming to be a doctor.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 1) Unions are associations under the 1st amendment and anyone wishing to join one should be able to. However, it is not up to government to get involved in those associations. If unions can attempt to create a labor monopoly, employers should be able to collaborate as well (equal protection) and the government should have no right to force people into those associations and force them to pay dues. This is especially true when those union dues primarily go to contributions to one political party that the individual members do not necessarily support. 2) Any government that treats some citizens or groups differently than others is not fair or honest. It gives the politicians and bureaucrats power to give favors to some at other's expense. It's worth a lot of bribes and votes from the favored. Democracy only works if the majority cannot opress the minority. Like it or not, the 1% is a very small minority. Do you think it's ok to give loan forgivness to some students and not other people's loans? Is it OK to tax some people differently than others? Is it OK to give some industries subsidies at taxpayer expense? Is it OK for some criminals to get plea deals and not others? Is it OK to give some races or genders special treatment (stupid hate laws that assume government can read minds)? Is it OK for government to force people to get poorly tested vaccines? Whether you are a doctor or a plumber, you should have the same rights and responsibilities under the force of government as everyone else - no special favors for anyone - it just leads to corruption.
@minionsystems 1) why should the government not be involved? Why should I care about your opinion on unions? Second, monopolies are natural because unity is more energy efficient. People's tax money goes to things people do not want like wars, car centric cities, bailing out banks, etc. 2) Do I believe in loan forgiveness for students and not for others, the answer is yes, I am not liberal, I don't agree with equality. I reject the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers who were anti- Catholic and anti-monarchist. 3) the concept of race came out liberalism who treat the blacks like trash to begin with, so their extra special treatment is a form of reparations. 4) the gender nonsense of giving special privileges came out of your liberal leftist camp. 5) my solution is to return back Catholic monarchy because everyone is subject to a king and papacy. 6) the corruption is comes directly comes from forced equality that you promote instead of accepting there are people who are meant to rule and giving extra special privileges but also with those special privileges comes with responsibilities.
Robert Reich dont understand incentives. He constantly blames greed, well lets say me and two of my friends we own every single gas station in the country and we decide because we are greedy to raise the price of gas together, soon its at $6 a gallon, but im more greedy then my friends are so i drop the price of gas to $5 a gallon, i will make less money per gallon i sell but on the other hand every person will now fill up their car with my gas. As it turns out me and my two friends compete against each other for customers and we can do so in two ways, price and the quality of the product we sell, so we have to sell the gas as cheap as we can.
So is greed now virtue? Second, you know the cheaper option is joining forces and becoming a monopoly and you remove the competition. Liberals are ignorant on economics because they treat the economy as a God I stead just a tool that is to support humanity.
The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.
Then they would get replaced like any other employee doing the same. 99.9% of businesses don't have a CEO. And of the ones that do, the average income ranges by state from $106K to $160K. Davis is spot on here. Try starting a business for yourself and see just how much it actually takes, and what is needed to make it survive. 99.9% of it is unknown to you, which is why you don't understand what a CEO actually does. And if their strategies were short term, then all futures and prospecting in their company stock would cease. Companies that are destined for bankruptcy are not attractive stocks to buy for investors.
If you look closer, you will discover that most CEOs clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors on Saturday night. I was one of millions of small businessmen; I wore all the hats. (CEO, CFO, Controller, Purchasing agent, Marketing, accountant and production.)
The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.
In a free market, there is no such thing as "overpaid". If both parties mutually consent, then the people are being paid exactly what people are willing to pay. If Lady Gaga makes $40 million singing songs, it's because her fans VOLUNTARILY AGREED to give her $40 million to sing songs.
@@BlackLibertarian Talking about a 'free market' is akin to talking about an "ideal gas" - it doesn't exist in reality. We're faced with pseudo-free market, where actors are not acting rationally, the government exists, and is not going to stop existing... We have to face reality and tackle these challenges, just the same. In a perfect world, with a free market, I'd agree about 'no such thing as overpaid', but in the real world, such a thing is very real, and we should do something about it.
CEOs? Most CEOs are small businessmen who clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors before going home Saturday night. I've been there and done that, and I wore all the hats. I am 73 years old and own a few rental investments. I am a part-time businessman even now, my properties need maintenance and management.
Someone is playing a game of schematics, it is understood when talking about CEOs, he is talking about the leader of big corporations and not some small company.
So you saying that CEOs are small businessmen? Wow, do they really need to give themselves a name like CEO to make themselves sound important? Bit sad really.
Because free markets are awesome and "neoliberalism" is a vacuous term
10 часов назад+2
- Free markets: No, that is not what he says. And trying to put dirt saying that he has a good economic position in no way undermines his data and arguments. - Unions were invented to fix the obvious power, knowledge and information disparity between a single worker and an employeer. And since employeers usually have more power there is a NEED to protect the right to unionize. Where you see a protected monopoly, there is a legal framework that makes the union posible. - Trade: You are talking about specialization, not global trade. And you are not disproving what he says. - CEOs: Anyone getting that kind of payment steps in the inmoral and unethical realm. It is wrong per se. The fact that labor market rules allow for that is a mistake. - Inflation: Totally on point. - Economics: So and so. - Any monopoly is a problem. Even if you are the best doing something. When you compair airlines you don't include many soft factors, technology improves, most cities already have airports built, etc, which make a flight affordable.
Why don’t union members simply start their own businesses.?There are no artificial barriers prohibiting union members from working for themselves and starting their own business,oh except for the little detail that most “workers “ know absolutely nothing about managing a complicated system of accounting,marketing,strategic planning and financial planning
CEOs can make terrible decisions at almost no risk to them and then move on to the next company which does happily hire them. The claim that CEO get fired and never work again has no founding in reality.
That CEO argument was weak. There's a serious problem with corporate governance in this country and being that it's proxy season I think all investors know what I'm talking about. You'd need to move to North Korea to find a ballot with less choices than an American proxy ballot. And when you own your shares through a fund (how most people own them) you don't even get a proxy ballot. Also, this idea that failed CEOs are doomed and unhirable is ludicrous. These people always end up making good money somewhere. If nothing else some board seat will open up for them - so they can rubber stamp some other CEO's unnecessarily high pay package.
also, he talks about CEO pay compensqting them for the risk that they take, but omits the fact that a decision such as to foster a culture of fraudulently opening bank accounts is not a risk that ever should be rewarded, successful or npt!
I'm having a problem with your debunking of Dr. Reich. First, he's a professor of public policy at Berkeley. I dont hear him referring to himself as an economist. 1. Reich used air quotes on "free market." You're not disagreeing with him. 2. He's not promoting govt required unions, as you claim he is. Again, no contradiction. 3. No contradiction. Reich didn't say trade is bad, as you claim. 4. CEO compensation is based on return to investors regardless of how the company benefits. Stock buybacks, destruction of subsidiaries, etc. What about Boeing endangering customers? You're wrong on this one. 5. 30% of Jan 2022 price increases was beyond cost increases. Oligarchies allow price gouging that fair competition doesn't. 6. You're arguing definitions. Boring. 7. Both types of monopolies are bad. When a company gets a monopoly, its behavior changes by jacking up prices. You're wrong again.
I was a department director in the hospital for 30+ years until I retired two years ago and I’ve been with hospitals with unions and without In your video in the beginning, I was questioning, and I made this comment to myself “he’s just making things up” And then when you went on your spiel about Robert exaggerating, the pay of CEOs and then the lightbulb went off in my mind because I happen to know a lot about this So as a department head in a hospital, you work your tail and you make 80 to 100,000 a year depending upon location but the CEO of that same hospital would make 1 million or more and trust me they did not work their tail off like I did I know because I would be in a meeting with them at least once a week and I was able to watch them up close not from afar so when you said that that told me you were just making things up and that’s where I had to shut the video down See you’re just trying to defend your turf so to speak rather than looking at Robert is saying from an overall perspective As much as you want Robert to be wrong, he is right So in the words of Mitt Romney went in the debate with Obama he said several times “nice try” That’s what I’m saying to you. “nice try”
Very good, Rob Reich should have never been listen too in his entire life. Since my college days I have always known this mans economic advice was the oppose of how to understand the situation. Always a tale of half truths.
The CEO of Disney has financially ruined Disney. He has not been fired. He has packed the board with friends & people who know nothing about the business Disney is in. It seems you can do a terrible job as a CEO & not worry about working again because you never got fired. CEOs are employees & in the case of Bob Iger with zero skin in the game. He sold nearly all of his Disney stock. CEOs and every member of the board are Employees, they should be paid a salary. They didn't build it. They don't own it. They don't get ruined if it fails. Their remuneration bares no relationship to the success of the company. They are all damaging the company in taking excessive payments reducing return to the actual owners of the company, it's share owners.
With regards to labor unions, the explanation of laws for organizing unions and the notion of "open shop" laws versus "closed shop" laws is a whole lot more nuanced than expressed in this video. Robert Reich got it wrong but so did the authors of this video. In most states where a labor union has a monopoly for a given employer, the workers need to hold a vote and a majority or even a supermajority of some kind (aka 60%+ of the employees voting) must support that union representing all employees. Even afterward, all employees represented by that union have a voice and a vote in union activities. If you want someone very familiar with parlimentary procedures and Robert's Rules of Order, just get a long time union member since nearly all union meetings often wrangle over procedures and who gets to speak. They take giving every member a voice very seriously. Open shop states tend to weaken unions to the point of them being ineffective. I have personally been fired from a job because I was merely sympathetic to helping organize a union, not even doing the active organizing. Open shop states make this a common practice even if it is illegal, since the penalties for doing that are so minor. It isnt perfect even in closed shop states, and I worked for a non-union company in a closed shop state where the employees rejected the labor union. It happens. It isnt the government cramming a union on employees or an employer by law as suggested in this video.
Economics is the dismal science, pointing out that there is no free lunch, there are just tradeoffs. I read that some time back, a Dem politician wanted to find a Dem economist that would be more positive about Dem policies, but they could not find any, as legitimate economists all gave about the same answers. Enter Robert Reich, who is not an economist but plays one on TV and other media. As someone below pointed out, Reich cosplays an economist, this is because he uses typical Dem arguments for Dem policies but tries to make them seem to be from an economic slant. Such a strategy fails with anyone that knows economics (witness this video), but as with any such propaganda, it can work well enough with some.
"Such a strategy fails with anyone that knows economics". That worrying since the vast majority of the population don't know. Must be the reason why they are sick to death with the rich getting much wealthier and Mr average realising the American dream is a sham.
I disagree with the CEO's pay. I have no problem with pay packages that are indexed to the long-term performance of the common stock, but too often, that isn't the case. And too often, when the stock fails to rise, the performance goals are lowered. They should not be rewarded for taking risks. Rewards are for succeeding. If you fail you lose. Rewarding failure leads to risky behavior.
In college we called it “moral hazard” of course, it’s one of those things rhat apply to us but not the ruling class and their buddies. For example, the bank bailout under Obama was probably the most explicit demonstration of this. We’re all slaves. Debt slaves.
I don't think people are being "rewarded for taking risks". People are being incentivized to take risks. Nobody will venture on taking a risk in the first place if there is no incentive to do so. Saying "If you take this risk, I will give you X" is sometimes the only way to convince people to take risks.
@@BlackLibertarian I'm a libertarian too! You have to take risks. are you suggesting they are being incentivized to take too much risk? If they are given deferred compensation based such as options on the common stock, the board and senior management decide the appropriate level of risk. Its like a leading a horse with a carrot on a stick. The carrot are options with an exercise price will above the current price a reasonable date in the future. its got to be an attainable goal...
@ Hello fellow libertarian! 🙂 So, in a free market, there is no such thing as someone "taking too much risk". If someone voluntarily agrees to take on risk, they do so because they believe that the risk is manageable, or that it's profitable. They believe that they will be better off than if they don't take the risk.
@ I disagree. If a bookie raises the payout on a black swan event, isn't that an inducement to accept greater risk? perhaps our disagreement is one of symantics? CEOs are not risking their own money, they are risking shareholder wealth. if the rewards are disproportionate to the risks, they are being induced to accept greater risks with OPM (other people money)...
I missed the '7' in the title at first and thought that 23 minutes is not nearly enough time to debunk Robert Reich lies. Could make a video a day debunking 7 of his lies, and probably never catch up.
Nobody really understands economics. Thus it is impossible to debunk anything, when no one knows anything about a constantly evolving social ‘science’. I appreciate what Mr. Davies is trying to do. Essentially, he is simply exposing Reich as the demagogue that he is. Beyond that, we’re all learning as we go.
Antony Davies is to Robert Reich what Tom Brady is to Snoop Dogg in Underdogs (a rapper playing an NFL star). You'd get the analogy if you've seen the movie lol.
Where as Elon Musk and the rest of the US Oligarchs are self centred egomaniacs bent on controlling much of the US for their own personal gains, striding the world like ancient gods! Forgive me, I'll go with Trotsky.
Im generally curious about his last points. Perhaps some data to back them up would help immensely. As anecdotally it feels (I understand this is terrible evidence) like the food and travel are significantly more expensive. It would be great to see how his point is supported
Fascinating that despite growing inequality Antony decides to focus on Robert Reich, rather than lets say, Elon Musk's impact in both political meddling and it's connection to his growing wealth. To compare Reich to average people is ridiculous as justification, by comparison to someone like Musk's impact and crucially resources. Davies tries to give the impression of being balanced but he is so clearly not.
Huge fan. Huge. Have learned SO much. That said: this is your worrrrrrrst presentation. Pro tip (only picking the most egregious failure): don't even TRY with that line for chief executives. No one with a rational mind is going to fall for your propositions there. Get a grip. Ironically - though not really - you got this presentation half right, mixed in, um, transparently.
Sorry I'm not seeing any "debunking" here: He makes some sound arguments and some points - but many of them are "distinctions," or clarifications - of Robert Reich's statements: In short- neither of them is "lying."
I'm absolutely no Robert Reich fan but the CEO example is a bad one. What real risk have these people ever encountered? It certainly isn't that they are going to lose all their own personal material worth, if they make bad calls it is the company and everything connected to it that suffers. The CEO at worst will lose the job and the current income from it but they never lose anything else.
Answer 1: doesn't give much, but makes sure he plugs his channel. Answer 2: fails to understand that many of us have worked for these large corporations where the CEO "streamlines" the company with layoffs so that the shareholders get more dividends. This is almost always to the detriment to the benefit of the company and then they take their golden handshake and take off. Answer 3: this is just not true. The sales price is literally the RRP. This was discovered where I live with one of the two major food retailers and they ONLY sold certain things when they were on sale (coz everyone wised up to this). This can only mean that the sale price is the actual price, otherwise they wouldn't have sales on many of these items for months of the year.
inflation also can be cause by increasing velocity of money... stimulus checks were to ombat abnormally low velocity and combat deflation. and it was known that it would be hard to unwind, but the alternatives were deemed worse.
This is my opinion so it is what it is. I think they had to give that stimulus out because due to the pandemic they were much more concerned about an economic collapse. It was a short term temporary fix but it gave them more time to get everything stabilized. I knew from the beginning that this would cause severe inflation in a few years which it did but that’s my take on it.
I enjoy Robert Reich because he plays on people's fear and lack of understanding. Most people really don't know how businesses work, so the average worker doesn't understand what needs to happen to run a business. They just feel they aren't getting their fair share.
I am not sure I would trust an economist on Economics. Don't they encourage infinite borrowing/printing money money as a nation and nothing will ever go wrong. Don't they say that running a long term trade deficit is no problem at all. Don't economists claim that the rule of Supply and Demand does not apply to House Prices or Wages when it comes to massively expanding the available labour force with Immigration. Don't economists think that hyper immigration infinity is good, even for countries like the UK which is very small. They do so without consideration for where those people might live, what roads they might drive on, hospitals, power stations or water reservoirs. Nor do they care that the UK is vastly beyond its carrying capacity, requiring dirty shipping for every day goods.
Walmart continues to grow. Walmart has NOT shrunk at all because it has gone into a market that Amazon really cannot exploit and that is mass market groceries. Even though Amazon bought Whole Foods, they are limited to upper income consumers in terms of groceries by the very nature of Whole Foods’ market.
Then do not have any protected monopolies. Why not expand a country's skill set? Use the force of government? What does that mean? You should always be skeptical, if not outright suspicious, of everything you do not see or understand. That applies to any non transparent enterprise. To any. Does not mean they may be bad, but, does not mean they are good. You just do not know.
No one understands inflation. It isn’t a rise in prices. It’s an increase (i.e., an “inflation”) of the money supply. When the supply of anything increases its price decreases. For example say a dollar is worth two bananas. Then the gov inflates the money supply. Now a dollar is only worth one banana. Sure the price of a banana rose from 50 cents to a dollar. But don’t confuse that price rise with inflation, because when you do, it obscures the cause of the inflation: government adding money to the economy. Why does it matter? Because another way to say “adding money” is “politicians buying votes.” As long as we understand that, we can see through the accounting tricks behind inflation. If a politician gives you money, YOU pay for it because the more he gives, the less it’s worth.
Reich presents himself as one that has special understanding that we, the unwashed masses, can trust. If he doesn't actually have that understanding, then he's a charlatan. And since he told us he knows what he's talking about and doesn't, liar doesn't seem too far off.
If you heard that the LABOR MINISTER didn't take 5 minutes out of their day to study the counter argument would you say they were just arrogant? A child is ignorant. A person may be random joe may be ignorant. A self described economist with YEARS in academia with full access and ability to study the minority thought is not ignorant. Robert Reich has had a whole lifetime to learn about austrian economics and give a literate counter argument. he hasnt.
@ What a misguided rant. Adults are definitely ignorant all the time too, and Reich definitely is. He's an ignorant delusional statist, whether from laziness or ignorance. He certainly believes his own bullshit. it's called Hanlon's Razor.
For all those in the comments. Let me know this difference in wealth distribution now and when the majority of the population were in unions. America has been on the decline ever since. We rank near the bottom of every metric in the world, but this is the richest country in history. Make it make sense 🤦🏾♂️ yall letting rich people eat your lunch and your grandchildren’s dinner. Small minded with absolutely no understanding of history or legislation. The idiocracy voting for its own demise.
Robert Reich has an estimated net worth of $4 million. And you want to put him in the same category as a Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg or Musk??? Talk about not telling the whole story
4:30 this is why I don’t want the US to require manufacturing here. We aren’t the best at it. China is the best at manufacturing by a large margin. The USA OWNS and RUNS the companies, not producing products
watched this for less than 2mins to hear someone say well yes of course he's right but I'm going to disagree with the word he uses... I think I'll pass on the rest of the article... better luck with your next post
Private schools may prioritize profit over education quality, leading to cost-cutting in essential areas like teacher pay ,Library why should u have when u can download it as pdf,bad syllabus .how would u deal with it? Expecting ur reply
They may, but they don't. Only government provides shitty "education" today. also, schooling is NOT education, schooling is schooling, and it's often the diametrical opposite of actual education.
@calysagora3615 nonsense, when public fund is deviate towards school choice u expect better performance. And no answer to my question about the problem with private school and it's possible solution.
Hogwash. You scoundrel baffoon. is it tarriffs that make trade possible? or how about taxation? or how about sanctions? how do those spur trade? Trade flourishes when government doesnt do anything. When no law has to looked over before setting out
Don’t forget: You can see Antony talk in person! Register for LibertyCon International right here: www.libertycon.com/
My favorite brand of content: dunking on Robert Reich
It's a fun hobby.
hell yeah
That's a 4'5" dunk. 😂
@@01nmuskier bruh I did not realize how short he was until this video that is nuts
@@FastlaneProductions1 same here. I knew he was short but this video made me realize how short he really is and was shocked
Robert Reich seems a politician who cosplays as an economist.
Airlines are another example of cronyism. The deregulation under Reagan was not to zero. The FAA still plays a massive role in the aviation industry, making it so that the cost of compliance makes it very difficult for new entries to arise. Exactly what you said: reduction in the number of airlines appears to be at least partly because government regulation makes new firms difficult, if not impossible to arise. Take a look at what it takes to get Part 121 certification (the rules regarding scheduled flights for sale). Take a look at the pilot licensing requirements. Even a commercial pilot can't offer services in their own airplane without first getting either a Part 121 operators certificate or a Part 135 operators certificate (required for unscheduled chartered flights). It's insanely expensive, time consuming, and requires an army of lawyers to confirm compliance. And even then it's still subject to the whims of the regulators. This is why there will never be an Uber for aviation. Despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of small airplanes sitting idle most of the time.
The fact that there is no Uber in airline make it the safest type of transportation so yeah the cost is justified
@damnguyen2721 that's your opinion but you have taken away the freedom of others to choose who don't share that opinion.
I mean... you could probably pick a better example... just saying, lol. This one ain't gonna rouse up any excess support
@@JohnDorian-j7x sure but the point is that the "deregulated" airlines aren't fully deregulated as the video suggests.
Also fwiw it is legal in its entirety to fly any passengers for any reason. What's illegal is getting paid to fly them. Safety is not the reason the rules exist.
@@1dullgeekas a monarchist, I don't care about your freedom
20:21 in his defense the government has giving money to bail out airlines. I personally think we should let them go bankrupt. If a company fails, the government should not help
@benjaminlehman3221 especially using taxpayer money to bail them out with.
What if the failure is due to government distortion of market?
It just goes to show that an industry such as the airlines is already quasi-public, and there lies the crux of many problems in America. Nothing is just straight up public or private, but always a mix of the two.
countries DO NOT "trade". People do. A farmer in Bolivia grows coffee. He sells it to Folgers. There was no "trade" between Bolivia and the US.
When I bought a Honda, there was no "trade" between Japan and USA involved. Just me exercising my preference for quality and "trading" my money for a car.
Countries do trade. You want an embargo on Honda from Japan? where's your preference to Honda's supply now? lol.
@@UnorthodoxKnoxYour comment is devoid of coherency. That's like saying a bridge trades because they allow cars to cross it from one side to another to transfer goods.
Fair point!
@ Try to understand my comment for more than two seconds, and you'll see what I'm saying. Or don't and stay mad forever.
@@UnorthodoxKnox You might take your own advice when it comes to the OP's comment.
Stop letting Robert get away with saying his name is Reich with an “sh” sound. It’s pronounced “Rike”, as in the third one
Both "sh" and "k" is wrong pronunciation, if you treat it as a German word.
@@FoxWolfWorld Robert Rich
He stars in that movie, "Rob Rich's Christmas Wishes"
Yeah it's sound that doesn't exist in English. Sh is closest
@@darincarter4744 though the sound doesn't exist on itself, you can pronounce it the way "Heigh ho" is pronounced in Snow White - without the O in the end. I also could probably transcribe it as "yh".
If this all makes sense to you
He can pronounce his OWN name any way he likes and it is 100% correct for him to do so. You are 100% wrong if you try to tell someone else that they are pronouncing their OWN name wrong. On the other hand, Reich is 100% wrong when he tries to spin tales about the economy because the economy is not (unlike one’s OWN name) controlled by just one person but instead is something over which we all play a part.
The root of the problem is not monopolies but government's ability to treat some people/groups differently than others.
Soime examples of unequal treatment are: industry subsidies, foreign aid, narrow laws that only affect certain groups, unequal benefits in health care, government education (a real monopoly), unequal taxation, unequal welfare benefits, government officials being treated in special ways e.g. setting their own salaries and other special protections like secret service, forced union memberships, unequal crime punishment including plea deals.
This government discrimination is a violation of the 14th amendment "equal protection" and it provides the incentive for corrupt bribes and vote buying (loan forgiveness, FDIC coverage beyone $250k for some and not others). There is an easy fix for government corruption: have the courts enforce equal protection under the law and throw out discriminatory laws.
Well said. The implementation of actual equal protection and equal rights under the law would eliminate most of government.
1) as always, there are gross people liberals like yourself attacking unions.
2) it is okay for the government to treat people differently as someone who is doctor has a more credibility than some person claiming to be a doctor.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 1) Unions are associations under the 1st amendment and anyone wishing to join one should be able to. However, it is not up to government to get involved in those associations. If unions can attempt to create a labor monopoly, employers should be able to collaborate as well (equal protection) and the government should have no right to force people into those associations and force them to pay dues. This is especially true when those union dues primarily go to contributions to one political party that the individual members do not necessarily support.
2) Any government that treats some citizens or groups differently than others is not fair or honest. It gives the politicians and bureaucrats power to give favors to some at other's expense. It's worth a lot of bribes and votes from the favored. Democracy only works if the majority cannot opress the minority. Like it or not, the 1% is a very small minority.
Do you think it's ok to give loan forgivness to some students and not other people's loans? Is it OK to tax some people differently than others? Is it OK to give some industries subsidies at taxpayer expense? Is it OK for some criminals to get plea deals and not others? Is it OK to give some races or genders special treatment (stupid hate laws that assume government can read minds)? Is it OK for government to force people to get poorly tested vaccines? Whether you are a doctor or a plumber, you should have the same rights and responsibilities under the force of government as everyone else - no special favors for anyone - it just leads to corruption.
@minionsystems 1) why should the government not be involved? Why should I care about your opinion on unions? Second, monopolies are natural because unity is more energy efficient. People's tax money goes to things people do not want like wars, car centric cities, bailing out banks, etc.
2) Do I believe in loan forgiveness for students and not for others, the answer is yes, I am not liberal, I don't agree with equality. I reject the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers who were anti- Catholic and anti-monarchist.
3) the concept of race came out liberalism who treat the blacks like trash to begin with, so their extra special treatment is a form of reparations.
4) the gender nonsense of giving special privileges came out of your liberal leftist camp.
5) my solution is to return back Catholic monarchy because everyone is subject to a king and papacy.
6) the corruption is comes directly comes from forced equality that you promote instead of accepting there are people who are meant to rule and giving extra special privileges but also with those special privileges comes with responsibilities.
Robert Reich dont understand incentives.
He constantly blames greed, well lets say me and two of my friends we own every single gas station in the country and we decide because we are greedy to raise the price of gas together, soon its at $6 a gallon, but im more greedy then my friends are so i drop the price of gas to $5 a gallon, i will make less money per gallon i sell but on the other hand every person will now fill up their car with my gas. As it turns out me and my two friends compete against each other for customers and we can do so in two ways, price and the quality of the product we sell, so we have to sell the gas as cheap as we can.
So is greed now virtue? Second, you know the cheaper option is joining forces and becoming a monopoly and you remove the competition. Liberals are ignorant on economics because they treat the economy as a God I stead just a tool that is to support humanity.
The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.
Then they would get replaced like any other employee doing the same.
99.9% of businesses don't have a CEO. And of the ones that do, the average income ranges by state from $106K to $160K. Davis is spot on here.
Try starting a business for yourself and see just how much it actually takes, and what is needed to make it survive. 99.9% of it is unknown to you, which is why you don't understand what a CEO actually does. And if their strategies were short term, then all futures and prospecting in their company stock would cease. Companies that are destined for bankruptcy are not attractive stocks to buy for investors.
6:47 professional athletes and CEOs are overpaid if you ask me
Maybe, but we don’t need regulations capping their pay.
If you look closer, you will discover that most CEOs clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors on Saturday night. I was one of millions of small businessmen; I wore all the hats. (CEO, CFO, Controller, Purchasing agent, Marketing, accountant and production.)
The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.
In a free market, there is no such thing as "overpaid".
If both parties mutually consent, then the people are being paid exactly what people are willing to pay.
If Lady Gaga makes $40 million singing songs, it's because her fans VOLUNTARILY AGREED to give her $40 million to sing songs.
@@BlackLibertarian Talking about a 'free market' is akin to talking about an "ideal gas" - it doesn't exist in reality. We're faced with pseudo-free market, where actors are not acting rationally, the government exists, and is not going to stop existing... We have to face reality and tackle these challenges, just the same. In a perfect world, with a free market, I'd agree about 'no such thing as overpaid', but in the real world, such a thing is very real, and we should do something about it.
CEOs? Most CEOs are small businessmen who clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors before going home Saturday night. I've been there and done that, and I wore all the hats. I am 73 years old and own a few rental investments. I am a part-time businessman even now, my properties need maintenance and management.
Someone is playing a game of schematics, it is understood when talking about CEOs, he is talking about the leader of big corporations and not some small company.
So you saying that CEOs are small businessmen? Wow, do they really need to give themselves a name like CEO to make themselves sound important? Bit sad really.
If the task is to dunk on Robert Reich, why does the solution require defending neoliberalism?
Because free markets are awesome and "neoliberalism" is a vacuous term
- Free markets: No, that is not what he says. And trying to put dirt saying that he has a good economic position in no way undermines his data and arguments.
- Unions were invented to fix the obvious power, knowledge and information disparity between a single worker and an employeer. And since employeers usually have more power there is a NEED to protect the right to unionize. Where you see a protected monopoly, there is a legal framework that makes the union posible.
- Trade: You are talking about specialization, not global trade. And you are not disproving what he says.
- CEOs: Anyone getting that kind of payment steps in the inmoral and unethical realm. It is wrong per se. The fact that labor market rules allow for that is a mistake.
- Inflation: Totally on point.
- Economics: So and so.
- Any monopoly is a problem. Even if you are the best doing something. When you compair airlines you don't include many soft factors, technology improves, most cities already have airports built, etc, which make a flight affordable.
Why don’t union members simply start their own businesses.?There are no artificial barriers prohibiting union members from working for themselves and starting their own business,oh except for the little detail that most “workers “ know absolutely nothing about managing a complicated system of accounting,marketing,strategic planning and financial planning
Normies run the world, Antony Davis is not a normie
He is the best!
CEOs can make terrible decisions at almost no risk to them and then move on to the next company which does happily hire them. The claim that CEO get fired and never work again has no founding in reality.
That CEO argument was weak. There's a serious problem with corporate governance in this country and being that it's proxy season I think all investors know what I'm talking about. You'd need to move to North Korea to find a ballot with less choices than an American proxy ballot. And when you own your shares through a fund (how most people own them) you don't even get a proxy ballot. Also, this idea that failed CEOs are doomed and unhirable is ludicrous. These people always end up making good money somewhere. If nothing else some board seat will open up for them - so they can rubber stamp some other CEO's unnecessarily high pay package.
also, he talks about CEO pay compensqting them for the risk that they take, but omits the fact that a decision such as to foster a culture of fraudulently opening bank accounts is not a risk that ever should be rewarded, successful or npt!
I'm having a problem with your debunking of Dr. Reich. First, he's a professor of public policy at Berkeley. I dont hear him referring to himself as an economist.
1. Reich used air quotes on "free market." You're not disagreeing with him.
2. He's not promoting govt required unions, as you claim he is. Again, no contradiction.
3. No contradiction. Reich didn't say trade is bad, as you claim.
4. CEO compensation is based on return to investors regardless of how the company benefits. Stock buybacks, destruction of subsidiaries, etc. What about Boeing endangering customers? You're wrong on this one.
5. 30% of Jan 2022 price increases was beyond cost increases. Oligarchies allow price gouging that fair competition doesn't.
6. You're arguing definitions. Boring.
7. Both types of monopolies are bad. When a company gets a monopoly, its behavior changes by jacking up prices. You're wrong again.
The problem with his analysis is that it assumes politicians do things in the best interests of their nations, and history shows that to be false.
I was a department director in the hospital for 30+ years until I retired two years ago and I’ve been with hospitals with unions and without
In your video in the beginning, I was questioning, and I made this comment to myself “he’s just making things up”
And then when you went on your spiel about Robert exaggerating, the pay of CEOs and then the lightbulb went off in my mind because I happen to know a lot about this
So as a department head in a hospital, you work your tail and you make 80 to 100,000 a year depending upon location but the CEO of that same hospital would make 1 million or more and trust me they did not work their tail off like I did I know because I would be in a meeting with them at least once a week and I was able to watch them up close not from afar so when you said that that told me you were just making things up and that’s where I had to shut the video down
See you’re just trying to defend your turf so to speak rather than looking at Robert is saying from an overall perspective
As much as you want Robert to be wrong, he is right
So in the words of Mitt Romney went in the debate with Obama he said several times “nice try”
That’s what I’m saying to you. “nice try”
I think it's a very one sided analysis in this video. He's one of those who worships the free market yet never worked a day in the real world.
Very good, Rob Reich should have never been listen too in his entire life. Since my college days I have always known this mans economic advice was the oppose of how to understand the situation. Always a tale of half truths.
Sadly both of these economists are promoting fairy tales.
The CEO of Disney has financially ruined Disney. He has not been fired. He has packed the board with friends & people who know nothing about the business Disney is in. It seems you can do a terrible job as a CEO & not worry about working again because you never got fired. CEOs are employees & in the case of Bob Iger with zero skin in the game. He sold nearly all of his Disney stock. CEOs and every member of the board are Employees, they should be paid a salary. They didn't build it. They don't own it. They don't get ruined if it fails. Their remuneration bares no relationship to the success of the company. They are all damaging the company in taking excessive payments reducing return to the actual owners of the company, it's share owners.
Disney in 2024 had net revenues of $69 billion and a net profit of $7 billion. You are an idiot with an ax to grind.
With regards to labor unions, the explanation of laws for organizing unions and the notion of "open shop" laws versus "closed shop" laws is a whole lot more nuanced than expressed in this video. Robert Reich got it wrong but so did the authors of this video.
In most states where a labor union has a monopoly for a given employer, the workers need to hold a vote and a majority or even a supermajority of some kind (aka 60%+ of the employees voting) must support that union representing all employees. Even afterward, all employees represented by that union have a voice and a vote in union activities.
If you want someone very familiar with parlimentary procedures and Robert's Rules of Order, just get a long time union member since nearly all union meetings often wrangle over procedures and who gets to speak. They take giving every member a voice very seriously.
Open shop states tend to weaken unions to the point of them being ineffective. I have personally been fired from a job because I was merely sympathetic to helping organize a union, not even doing the active organizing. Open shop states make this a common practice even if it is illegal, since the penalties for doing that are so minor.
It isnt perfect even in closed shop states, and I worked for a non-union company in a closed shop state where the employees rejected the labor union. It happens. It isnt the government cramming a union on employees or an employer by law as suggested in this video.
Robert Reich is the ultimate contrarian indicator, there is nothing he can't be completely wrong about.
Ty for doing this. Reich annoys the hell out of me. He is a rich millionaire telling people to tax the rich, dude put your money where your mouth is.
Robert Reich is an absolute clown.
Antony Davies + Dunking on RR = autolike
If you like RR getting dunk you should checkout The Political Checkmate
@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky ok PC, you get one chance: what's the video you've made that you would want me to see to determine if I subscribe?
Economics is the dismal science, pointing out that there is no free lunch, there are just tradeoffs. I read that some time back, a Dem politician wanted to find a Dem economist that would be more positive about Dem policies, but they could not find any, as legitimate economists all gave about the same answers. Enter Robert Reich, who is not an economist but plays one on TV and other media. As someone below pointed out, Reich cosplays an economist, this is because he uses typical Dem arguments for Dem policies but tries to make them seem to be from an economic slant. Such a strategy fails with anyone that knows economics (witness this video), but as with any such propaganda, it can work well enough with some.
Psssst…. Econ is not a science. Its closer to a narratilogy than a science.
"Such a strategy fails with anyone that knows economics". That worrying since the vast majority of the population don't know. Must be the reason why they are sick to death with the rich getting much wealthier and Mr average realising the American dream is a sham.
I disagree with the CEO's pay. I have no problem with pay packages that are indexed to the long-term performance of the common stock, but too often, that isn't the case. And too often, when the stock fails to rise, the performance goals are lowered. They should not be rewarded for taking risks. Rewards are for succeeding. If you fail you lose. Rewarding failure leads to risky behavior.
In college we called it “moral hazard” of course, it’s one of those things rhat apply to us but not the ruling class and their buddies. For example, the bank bailout under Obama was probably the most explicit demonstration of this. We’re all slaves. Debt slaves.
I don't think people are being "rewarded for taking risks".
People are being incentivized to take risks. Nobody will venture on taking a risk in the first place if there is no incentive to do so.
Saying "If you take this risk, I will give you X" is sometimes the only way to convince people to take risks.
@@BlackLibertarian I'm a libertarian too! You have to take risks. are you suggesting they are being incentivized to take too much risk? If they are given deferred compensation based such as options on the common stock, the board and senior management decide the appropriate level of risk. Its like a leading a horse with a carrot on a stick. The carrot are options with an exercise price will above the current price a reasonable date in the future. its got to be an attainable goal...
@ Hello fellow libertarian! 🙂
So, in a free market, there is no such thing as someone "taking too much risk". If someone voluntarily agrees to take on risk, they do so because they believe that the risk is manageable, or that it's profitable. They believe that they will be better off than if they don't take the risk.
@ I disagree. If a bookie raises the payout on a black swan event, isn't that an inducement to accept greater risk? perhaps our disagreement is one of symantics? CEOs are not risking their own money, they are risking shareholder wealth. if the rewards are disproportionate to the risks, they are being induced to accept greater risks with OPM (other people money)...
If anyone wants more videos debunking Robert riech I am the channel for that
Clearly you aren't Mr average USA with stagnate wages for well over a decade. Sucking up to the US Oligarchs is fine if you get paid enough I guess.
I missed the '7' in the title at first and thought that 23 minutes is not nearly enough time to debunk Robert Reich lies. Could make a video a day debunking 7 of his lies, and probably never catch up.
I have produce over ten videos debunking Robert riech arguments
Nobody really understands economics. Thus it is impossible to debunk anything, when no one knows anything about a constantly evolving social ‘science’. I appreciate what Mr. Davies is trying to do. Essentially, he is simply exposing Reich as the demagogue that he is. Beyond that, we’re all learning as we go.
A healthy society isn't one that only invests in its specialized industry. A healthy country has a balance in industries.
Antony Davies is to Robert Reich what Tom Brady is to Snoop Dogg in Underdogs (a rapper playing an NFL star). You'd get the analogy if you've seen the movie lol.
Wonderful job. Loved this. Thanks! :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
You may very well be the most uniformed You-tuber I've ever heard. It just goes to show ANYONE can have their own RUclips channel.
One of my favorite economists taking down one of my least favorite economists. Keep it up, professor.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Robert Reich is a tiny Trotsky.
Where as Elon Musk and the rest of the US Oligarchs are self centred egomaniacs bent on controlling much of the US for their own personal gains, striding the world like ancient gods! Forgive me, I'll go with Trotsky.
This was good.
Im generally curious about his last points. Perhaps some data to back them up would help immensely. As anecdotally it feels (I understand this is terrible evidence) like the food and travel are significantly more expensive. It would be great to see how his point is supported
Great stuff!
1:22 Prof. Reich also calls it Cronyism or Crony Captalism.
You see prof Antony Davies, you drop a like!
Fascinating that despite growing inequality Antony decides to focus on Robert Reich, rather than lets say, Elon Musk's impact in both political meddling and it's connection to his growing wealth. To compare Reich to average people is ridiculous as justification, by comparison to someone like Musk's impact and crucially resources. Davies tries to give the impression of being balanced but he is so clearly not.
Huge fan. Huge. Have learned SO much. That said: this is your worrrrrrrst presentation.
Pro tip (only picking the most egregious failure): don't even TRY with that line for chief executives. No one with a rational mind is going to fall for your propositions there. Get a grip.
Ironically - though not really - you got this presentation half right, mixed in, um, transparently.
Sorry I'm not seeing any "debunking" here: He makes some sound arguments and some points - but many of them are "distinctions," or clarifications - of Robert Reich's statements: In short- neither of them is "lying."
I'm absolutely no Robert Reich fan but the CEO example is a bad one. What real risk have these people ever encountered? It certainly isn't that they are going to lose all their own personal material worth, if they make bad calls it is the company and everything connected to it that suffers. The CEO at worst will lose the job and the current income from it but they never lose anything else.
next let's debunk the debunking of the debunker...
Answer 1: doesn't give much, but makes sure he plugs his channel.
Answer 2: fails to understand that many of us have worked for these large corporations where the CEO "streamlines" the company with layoffs so that the shareholders get more dividends. This is almost always to the detriment to the benefit of the company and then they take their golden handshake and take off.
Answer 3: this is just not true. The sales price is literally the RRP. This was discovered where I live with one of the two major food retailers and they ONLY sold certain things when they were on sale (coz everyone wised up to this). This can only mean that the sale price is the actual price, otherwise they wouldn't have sales on many of these items for months of the year.
Great video
Excellent video!
Thank you very much!
inflation also can be cause by increasing velocity of money... stimulus checks were to ombat abnormally low velocity and combat deflation. and it was known that it would be hard to unwind, but the alternatives were deemed worse.
This is my opinion so it is what it is. I think they had to give that stimulus out because due to the pandemic they were much more concerned about an economic collapse. It was a short term temporary fix but it gave them more time to get everything stabilized. I knew from the beginning that this would cause severe inflation in a few years which it did but that’s my take on it.
I enjoy Robert Reich because he plays on people's fear and lack of understanding. Most people really don't know how businesses work, so the average worker doesn't understand what needs to happen to run a business. They just feel they aren't getting their fair share.
I am not sure I would trust an economist on Economics. Don't they encourage infinite borrowing/printing money money as a nation and nothing will ever go wrong. Don't they say that running a long term trade deficit is no problem at all. Don't economists claim that the rule of Supply and Demand does not apply to House Prices or Wages when it comes to massively expanding the available labour force with Immigration. Don't economists think that hyper immigration infinity is good, even for countries like the UK which is very small. They do so without consideration for where those people might live, what roads they might drive on, hospitals, power stations or water reservoirs. Nor do they care that the UK is vastly beyond its carrying capacity, requiring dirty shipping for every day goods.
Walmart continues to grow. Walmart has NOT shrunk at all because it has gone into a market that Amazon really cannot exploit and that is mass market groceries. Even though Amazon bought Whole Foods, they are limited to upper income consumers in terms of groceries by the very nature of Whole Foods’ market.
Athletes and singers dont move jobs out of america like CEO did that is why they are being hated
Robert Reich earns his wealth by ranting about wealthy people
Preach, brother!
Then do not have any protected monopolies.
Why not expand a country's skill set?
Use the force of government? What does that mean?
You should always be skeptical, if not outright suspicious, of everything you do not see or understand. That applies to any non transparent enterprise. To any. Does not mean they may be bad, but, does not mean they are good. You just do not know.
No one understands inflation. It isn’t a rise in prices. It’s an increase (i.e., an “inflation”) of the money supply. When the supply of anything increases its price decreases. For example say a dollar is worth two bananas. Then the gov inflates the money supply. Now a dollar is only worth one banana. Sure the price of a banana rose from 50 cents to a dollar. But don’t confuse that price rise with inflation, because when you do, it obscures the cause of the inflation: government adding money to the economy.
Why does it matter? Because another way to say “adding money” is “politicians buying votes.” As long as we understand that, we can see through the accounting tricks behind inflation. If a politician gives you money, YOU pay for it because the more he gives, the less it’s worth.
Was it a weird coincidence that right after you accuse Dr. Reich of benefiting from cronyism you advertise for your speaking tour?
Every. Single. Time.
Robert Reich doesn't lie, lying implies intent. He's simply WRONG out of ignorance. (Chill with the clickbait titles)
So he's lying when he calls himself an expert "economist"?
Reich presents himself as one that has special understanding that we, the unwashed masses, can trust. If he doesn't actually have that understanding, then he's a charlatan. And since he told us he knows what he's talking about and doesn't, liar doesn't seem too far off.
If you heard that the LABOR MINISTER didn't take 5 minutes out of their day to study the counter argument would you say they were just arrogant? A child is ignorant. A person may be random joe may be ignorant. A self described economist with YEARS in academia with full access and ability to study the minority thought is not ignorant. Robert Reich has had a whole lifetime to learn about austrian economics and give a literate counter argument. he hasnt.
@ What a misguided rant. Adults are definitely ignorant all the time too, and Reich definitely is. He's an ignorant delusional statist, whether from laziness or ignorance. He certainly believes his own bullshit. it's called Hanlon's Razor.
@ Again, Hanlon's Razor. He's wrong, not evil. Him calling himself an economist is the Dunning-Kreuger effect.
Learn liberty is big good.
For all those in the comments. Let me know this difference in wealth distribution now and when the majority of the population were in unions. America has been on the decline ever since. We rank near the bottom of every metric in the world, but this is the richest country in history. Make it make sense 🤦🏾♂️ yall letting rich people eat your lunch and your grandchildren’s dinner. Small minded with absolutely no understanding of history or legislation. The idiocracy voting for its own demise.
higher worker pay would have little effect on the billionaire class. their net worths are all tied up in stocks
That's what he does, appealing to emotion.
Another wrong Austrian school economist.
Robert Reich has an estimated net worth of $4 million. And you want to put him in the same category as a Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg or Musk??? Talk about not telling the whole story
Estimated by whom?
@ what source would satisfy you? Do you have a source that counters my $4 million claim?
4:30 this is why I don’t want the US to require manufacturing here. We aren’t the best at it. China is the best at manufacturing by a large margin.
The USA OWNS and RUNS the companies, not producing products
watched this for less than 2mins to hear someone say well yes of course he's right but I'm going to disagree with the word he uses... I think I'll pass on the rest of the article... better luck with your next post
Private schools may prioritize profit over education quality, leading to cost-cutting in essential areas like teacher pay ,Library why should u have when u can download it as pdf,bad syllabus .how would u deal with it? Expecting ur reply
The school won't be profiting all that much when the parents send their kids to a better school.
They may, but they don't. Only government provides shitty "education" today. also, schooling is NOT education, schooling is schooling, and it's often the diametrical opposite of actual education.
@dantpoland-nl7id what if parents fell into a scam.Not all Parents r perfect . Deception play a main role in private school marketing
@calysagora3615 nonsense, when public fund is deviate towards school choice u expect better performance. And no answer to my question about the problem with private school and it's possible solution.
Public schools prioritize administrative bloat over education.
Its only through govt policies and laws that there is trade with other countries.
Absolute NONSENSE!
Hogwash. You scoundrel baffoon. is it tarriffs that make trade possible? or how about taxation? or how about sanctions? how do those spur trade? Trade flourishes when government doesnt do anything. When no law has to looked over before setting out
"It's only through the highway robber that there is trade with other towns"
@@Likeabossjw or "It's only through slavery that the cotton will get picked!"
Oh, the delusions of statists...
👍🏻😎🇺🇸