25 thoughts on “OBAMANOMICS EXPLAINED Spreading the Wealth”

1. epic…but true

2. The pie analogy is simple, but they make a good point. I know several retired people whose pie is starting to look like Teller’s.

3. The most important part of the analogy is that the people who give themself “pie” eat it, and leave nothing to show for it except a void that requires more pie from the person who has it.

4. And no, the tax rate it not 100%, you’re right. But with Penn constantly “giving himself” part of Teller’s pies, do you think Teller is more or less likely to go get more pies? Won’t there come a time when Teller is tired of getting pies he only gets half of, thereby leaving them both with nothing, as the example suggests?

5. But you’re ignoring the fact that it’s Teller’s pie, not Penn’s. It’s irrelevant that the “pie” would be used for services like roads, military, police, and fire station? It’s Teller’s pie. I would like to point out that your examples are simplifications too, because the “pie” is spent on far more frivilous things than what you listed.

6. And when you take things in percentages you never get to zero. I’ve never seen a tax rate of 100%.

7. The contention that if Teller has pie, because of re-distribution of wealth, Penn can just take all of Teller’s pie. That is such a simplification. What about the fact that Penn’s use of Teller’s pie would be for goods and services like roads and sewer pipes, the military, the police and the fire station? It just isn’t a logical analogy.

8. Tell me what in this example is incorrect then.

9. actually they never said they were objective. they’ve done an act called the bullshit of bullshit

10. You know what, I like Penn & Teller bullshit…but he needs to keep his political views out of the show. They’re too subjective and too opinionated and they aren’t in keeping with the supposedly objectively bullshit theme of the show.

11. Strawman arguments Very impressive! I wish the
    Republican Right would face up to a debate, rather than rely on lies, logical fallacies and overt propaganda to achieve a convulted message.

12. and the uaw!!!!! and next the welfare moms bravo bravo bravo, change change change. thats wahat we are all going to asking for on corners and freeway exits soon. my family left a communist country to come here. as a first generation american who knows the other side of the fence this is gonna suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

13. axe, i would ask u to take a step back, read ur utube profile, then read thru ur comments here and then with an open mind, ask urself if there is not something really weird going on with u.

14. I mean long term neutrality of money … I got a little excited

15. There exists short term non-neutrality of money. Theres long term non-neutrality of money.

    THERES also a 80/20 weighted adaptive/rational expectations operator. Inflationary pressures decay extremely slowly. Epic Ownage

16. Ok I wont skirt around the issue anymore….

    Youre talking about devaluation which is the opposite of inflation. You are talking about contractionary monetary policy. You remedy the problem by inflating the money stock. Seriously, you should know the words that you use.

17. the central bank does the depreciating. this is being done with digital money. so if the central bank sets the depreciation rate at .25%, when u log onto your bank account u will see .25% deducted from ur balance each day.

18. yes, u r correct, if u increase the money stock 20% that will cause inflation.

    but if u were following along, that is not what im doing. im adding new money to replace the old money that was depreciated and taken out of the money stock.

    $1000 starting money stock
    - $200 depreciation
    +$200 new money
    =$1000 the same amount u started with

    the total money stock does not change. the day u depreciate the money stock X% is the day u print X% in new money

19. Why oh why do you think there was a depreciation ?????? Think about it and get back to me

20. If you increase the money stock by 20%(holding productive capacity equal), there will be a 20% decrease in the value of the dollar in the long run. Printing more money will only further decrease the value of each individual dollar. How do you not understand this?

21. axe, i see u like to throw out a lot of buzz words, but none of it has to do with the conversation.

    inflation is when u increase the money supply without an equal increase in production. im not increasing the money supply.

    if u have $1000, and i take $10 from u for depreciation and give u $10 by printing money, how much do u have?

    U HAVE $1000 – THE SAME AMOUNT. THE TOTAL MONEY SUPPLY HAS NOT CHANGED

22. If were talking about currency dynamics, It is caused by relative inflation differentials & relative interest rates differentials. Imperfect substitution also comes into play

23. If were not talking in terms of currency depreciation, .25% daily depreciation is caused by the erosion of the dollar ..One will be unable to buy the same basket of goods. Do you not understand what inflation is?

24. A .25% increase in the money will in the long run lead to a .25% increase in the price level. Ever heard of the long run neutrality of money.

25. I test macro models. How in hell do you propose that I test the effect of such a minuscule amount