I don't think Russia would use a nuke over Crimea. There is some benefit to the nuke, but it will also end co-operation with China. This is because nuclear use will show East Asian governments (especially Korea and Taiwan) that they can't defend themselves unless they have a capability to respond in kind. China very much does not want those governments to get nukes, and would therefore probably punish Russia. Especially because personal relations and feelings matter in international politics, not just game theory.

another fire video from absurd chicken

dunning kruger effect on display

elizabeth warren proposed a wealth tax during her 2020 presidential campaign, and Biden just hiked tariffs on Chinese EVs, chips and other goods. So it isn't just Trump who says this, yet you fail to criticize them. Also, you are conflating skilled immigration with illegal mass immigration. Trump is not against skilled or merit-based immigration, he is against illegal, uncontrolled mass immigration and open-border policies which strains resources, especially in border towns where they do not have the capacity to house or provide for all the migrants coming in.

if you cant make a profit paying your workers the minimum wage, then maybe that business shouldn't exists?

Japan actually are a lot in population 122 milions but many locals choose stay in tokyo for career and hedonistic lifestyle.. If you go outside of tokyo it's like dead city and villages.. Many Abandoned homes and you seldom see persons or vehicles..

Fails at whot though?

*Wealth tax:* I'm going to assume that Trump's wealth tax comment is missing context, like 90% of negative things said about him. You're late to the party in criticizing him and that's just the precedent that's been set. How would a billionaire not understand that most of his own wealth is in the form of assets and not money sitting in a bank? *Tariffs:* Free trade is indeed superior, *if both parties are participating in good faith.* Trump's trade war with China was in retaliation for their tariffs on our exports. And as a temporary measure it succeeded in reducing and eliminating Chinese tariffs. *Trade deficit:* This is the most shortsighted, 'at least my treasure pile is getting bigger' take on trade I've ever heard. The US gets free shit for money that they've simply printed, and you see nothing wrong with that arrangement? No downsides? Negative implications? *Immigration:* Now I'm certain this video was made in bad faith and isn't an error in knowledge. He's anti-*illegal* immigration. The thing that's resulted in untold sexual assaults, drugs pouring into the country, babies found floating in the Rio Grande and actual law-abiding immigrants being stuck in a system that's inefficient because illegal crossing is so normalized and expected. Your conflation of legal and illegal immigration is reductive, misleading and bad-faith. *Low unemployment:* There's a labor shortage, you're only considered unemployed if you're looking for work, the issue is too many people have a recourse to working. *Trump is a mediocre businessman:* Dude... Stop. Just stop. This is so disappointing.

Joe Biden understands economics even less than Trump. It's unfortunate that they are our options.

damn why the trump slander

I own and run a corporation. If our taxes go up, we will not raise our prices, nor pay less. We will profit less. In other words, we will pay it. In fact, that happened. Hope that helps. Next video can be much shorter.

A) If you need insulin, and you're being directly charged for it, and there aren't numerous rival hospitals nearby, you're going to be paying the maximum amount you're able to pay. B) the tax is barely going to make any difference. After a certain point, demand just becomes pretty much elastic. C) This is why 32/33 developed countries have public healthcare systems - it's cheaper (to both the consumer, and to run). D) Health Insurance is literally the same thing (paying for other people's healthcare) except twice as expensive

This doesn't take into account technology development rate. It's only becoming more and more rapid. Soon you will be able to house trillions on Earth and untold -illions in spacestations.

The same reason why higher minimum wage will usually lead to higher prices and more unemployment

In other words: It's our own government that is making our lives more miserable.

editing and concept are great, i really hope youtube starts pushing your content more

The legal incidence of a tax does not - necessarily - coincide with its economic incidence. Honestly, elasticity is the GOAT of economic concepts.

Low interest rates are bad, it creates zombie companies. People use resources less carefully resulting in waste and a later crisis.

Inflation (i.e. devaluation) of the currency of a particular country is primarily a domestic (internal) problem for that country. It's hard to argue that $200 haircuts and $1500 hotel rooms are anything other than currency dilution, i.e., what used to be called "money printing."

where did you get info ab 13k$ yearly average income in russia? (im from ru btw)

I think your content is amazing. I see comments saying trash about your videos. Please don't let it get to you. Your videos are amazing.

... since people aren't objects?

work remotely in a US company and lives on thai and bali, believes me it WORKS wonder.

I don't care what neocomies say about this guy, i like him because he based

I also think an important detail often overlooked is he was in Moscow.. the situation in smaller cities and rural areas is a lot different to say Moscow or Saint Petersberg

2:30 except you actually can. That's why immigration is a thing, and overpopulation in poorer countries used to be a thing before rich countries started losing their own population and became dependent on the cheaper manpower readily coming in.

Some people mentioned number 2 is wrong but number 1 is wrong as well. For example, a lot of poor countries have a comparative advantage in world trade but because of the fact that rich countries subsidize their crops and also the fact that the absolute amount of goods they create with much higher levels of productivity means that poor countries can't compete. Even in their own countries, they can't sell their own goods because foreign agriculture is so cheap, and the fact they have no infrastructure to be able to do manufacturing or services it creates a debt spiral with World Bank and IMF loans. Also on top of that because the World Bank and IMF require countries to be open to more free trade and do austerity measures it destroys any infant manufacturing sectors they already have. There is a reason why China has basically been the only country to push itself out of poverty while all the other countries have squandered and that was because they were able to create a moat around their infant industries and were able to grow them to compete on the world stage.

bro this isnt 1950s america 💀

I think Taiwan manipulates its currency a lot, which explains things

This is unfairly high-quality, I especially love the aesthetic and design.

I can see these arguments came from an echochamber. Also the scarcity mentality is literally stalinist pragmatism. You are which you critique.

I am a Communist. Because working toward building a better society is better than drifting around aimlessly, with no meaning and purpose in life. There

0:18 is the answer you’re welcome

bro, the lenin quote is about the bourgeoisie, who do not work and earn money by exploiting workers. It is taken comepletely out of context and deprived of it's meaning

საქართველოს უნივერსიტეტი რა შუაშია?

60 dislikes wow. Some people really skipped history class.

1:51 Yes that's exploitation in every sense of the word. The worker produces chairs worth 15 dollars and receives 10 dollars. You get 5 dollars for doing absolutely nothing, just because you own the means of production.

0:47 I love how on the exact same page, Marx says that in higher phase communism, it's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" This has to be the laziest red scare propaganda I've ever seen.

Wow... This sucks. Sorry, I wanted to make a more constructive comment but there is so much wrong in these 3 minutes I don't even know where to begin. This is pure Dunning-Kruger.

nah this gotta be a rage bait. I'm don't consider my self as either socialist or capitalist. I have very surface level of understanding these but the thing that bothers me with both of these view are these; 1) Capitalist system seems and is brilliant at first. You work hard, you earn right but when this model gets to a point that even if you work hard you don't get to earn right. Why? Because your ideas of work or any way to earn money costs money. The rich have better education available to them and families with successful ideas that teach them how to be like their parents. Also those parents literally gatekeep being rich by voting and creating rings to influence economical politics so that anyone who has good ideas would either sell those ideas to them or be one of those wagies. These rings not only puts barriers to others but also hides their inequal and outright illegal activities to make profit. Let's say what's wrong with being a wagie? Nothing wrong at the surface but everything wrong with a little more paddle work. Everything you buy costs extra money because you pay taxes. These taxes are not only keeps you safe and somewhat get you some care, like having an army or having roads to drive on which is allright. What's not allright is your tax from a choclate bar, also is being used to make the rich get richer by government erasing their loans or just funding them because of their rings of power. I mean it literally. Companies have much more influence than workers when it comes to politics. Also even though you as a worker get in unions so that you would have some control over your life a bit more than companies you get shunned instantly. At least in most of the countries this is a reality. So I hate capitalism because you have no power against companies and even if you try to go against them you have to hop off the barriers they have set. 2) Total socialism sounds like a utopia at first yet you do the same things as a worker if you were in a capitalist system. It's just that you have a bit more control over why and who you work for. You work so that whole people in the system would gain benefit of your work and they're doing the same. Sounds reasonable but when theres no compatition to do better and gain more as a worker or someone with money, you just keep being the same all your life. Thus not making anybody to do better products or research a way to make them cheaper. This causes people to have boring lifes. Also benefits of socialism doesn't come out of nowhere you pay a lot more taxes but at least get better healthcare and education from it. Being poor on a socialist system is better than the capitalist one. But theres no reason to seek out new ways to get better financially, you will get the same cares as a poor worker with the rich politicians (or so it seems like that to you, everyone will use state power to benefit themselves). When everybody does the same you get no financial growth enough to keep your younger generations have sustainable standarts as you did. Thus creating poverty by each generation of people. We should just tax the rich in a reasonable way. I believe no one should have more than 2 cars belong to them nor have enough houses that even if they stopped working, they would be considered as a lord if we were living in the 1300s. Also everything that is free is a compelete lie, everybody knows this. Free healthcare is a lie too. I'm telling this as a citizen who lives in a country that healthcare is "free". You will pay a lot, like a lot, more taxes than you're paying right now and if anything happens you will benefit from it for like 10 times at most. What you won't stop tho is paying taxes. Taxes from everything you own and the funny part is paying taxes for everything you don't own too. This is not only true for healthcare your politicians will keep erasing the loans of companies that gave them funds. Your cars will cost more so that you will have a road to drive on. So that you will pay for the healthcare and education of others even if they don't care about working and live like bums. Being born poor is not your fault, dieing a one is your fault. Even as living in a harsh capitalist system as a poor men/women/whatever you call yourself, doesn't mean you don't have any reason to not try to get more "comfortable" or have any barriers you can't hop off. You just need to know the game well and play your cards by both taking risks and being cautious. You need to learn financial readability (I made up this term by trasnlating the word we have in my native language) and be reasonable with your spending. You don't have money to make more? That's a lie even a kid makes enough money by doing chores to get something they want. You have countless paths you could pursue that you ignore in behalf of how easy it is to ignore.

As government is a monopoly and it's the only business that isn't capable of breaking itself up. There is human envy, jealousy, misery, things that aren't able to be seen behind smiling faces which don't tell the truth. A enemy does no harm as people know where their enemies are coming from, handshakes, smiles, and pats on the back hold people back. Smiling faces sometimes don't tell the truth.

Did somebody say McCarthyism?

The starting qoute is indeed accredited to Lenin.......as he is credited the scripture 2 Thessalonians 3:10; and the context of wich he said was talking about the Capitalist class as the non workers, they dont work, they own.

This video misunderstands and misrepresents basic communist concepts, things which could be rectified with even a skim through the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx was criticial of equality, that is true. However, the explanation of this you give is wholly erroneous. You provide a quotation from Marx, yet astonishingly you manage to read the exact opposite of what he was saying in it. You claim that he was in favour of a system in which the remuneration people recieve is proportional to the labour they do, however this is precisely the "equal right" he is criticising in the quote! His point is that people are inherently unequal, that they have different circumstances, different abilities etc etc and thus a system which rewards everyone equally proportionally to their labour actually means that people would still be unequal in regards to how much they recieve. This system, which Marx and Lenin call equal or bourgeois right, is in fact a holdover from capitalism, which would be present in the lower phase of communism which is developing out of capitalism and thus still bears its mark. However, as communist society develops, this is replaced by a system in which people are compensated according to their own particular needs: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Again, all this would be clear if you had bothered to read even the next two paragraphs after the quote you used, paragraphs you had the gall to show on screen while blatantly ignoring them. As well, you imply that Marx and Lenin don't want those who cannot work to recieve funds, however Marx explicitly argues in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that, in the lower phase of socialism, it is necessary to set aside a portion of the social product for those unable to work. He says this to disprove the Lassallean maxim that "labour is entitled to all it creates", a phrase that you would likely have us believe was championed by Marx! "Worker control of the means of production" also has nothing to do with Marx. Mandating that workers must control their own firms maintains the anarchy of production and all the laws of capitalist accumulation. Socialism means the elimination of the individual firm and the social control of the means of production, so that production can be performed according to a common plan. I would recommend that you actually read Marx before attempting to critique him.

1) You completely misunderstanded Lenin's quotation: "He who does not work, shall not eat" is addressed to the one's who are able to work, and just decide to do not because of their laziness. In capitalism, many (the bourgeois, the rich owners of land and/or companies) do not work and still earn much more then the ones actually working for them, wich is exactly what Lenin criticizes in the quote. 2) About the Karl Marx's quotation: if you went on to read more then those three lines, you would have noticed that he explicitly says that the "defect" of socialism you pointed out as if it was a contradiction in communism is, in reality, just a inevitable part of the first fase of communism, wich will cease to existe ones society gets to a higher phase of it. 3) Communists do not want to abolish profit, they want to stop people profitting from others peoples work without working, and just using their money to make more: an example of that in capitalist society are stock market big investors, which make fortunes just by manipulating their capital, not contribuiting to society by working. 4) You say people under socialism would starve if they didn't work, wich I explained in point 1 to be a misunderstanding of Lenin's quotation, but what would happen to workers in capitalist society if they decided not to work? Woulden't they get fired from there job and starve?

Commies coping rn

Gotta love the seething tankies in the comments

It is about equality. Marx made Marxism. Everyone needs to work for a country to stay alive. It doesnt reinforce the idea that we should be slaves to our jobs. It reinforces the idea that if you dont do anything, maybe just maybe the state shouldnt give you everything for free. This is just pure ragebait

This is quite literally McCarthy era cartoons worth of understanding of socialism.

One day you will be older than 15 and cringe to this video... You literally just cherry pick phrases out of all the documents one guy wrote? Aighty... Besides that, your definition of capitalism is the wet dream of some 14 yo Elon Musk fan who cant think further than a 10 people company, lets not even talk about a whole company... Capitalism does work in some ways, but you failed to recognize any of them... congrats