Just how bullshit are they? Can you give me blatant examples of their bias?

They explicitly singled out 1000-1300, the High Middle Ages, not the dark ages.

Why do you cunts on Veeky Forums insist on lying about what other people say?

>tax cuts implemented a golden age
you are boomer filth
>why are you lying?
you're some dumb cunt with your head so far up your ass words have no meaning
>also
the vid was
>how dark were the dark ages?
then it goes on to tell everyone to have a lord prima noche your wife

So you do admit that the video was about 1000-1300? The period referred to as the High Middle Ages?

"Prima noche" [sic] wasn't even a thing you retarded mong. Newsflash, movies aren't a good source for historical periods.

the video was about the dark ages 'darkness'. and it was wrong. You are the lying cunt, not me.
>dude its not a thing
the lord literally owns you, your wife, your children, and could kill you and fuck her if he wanted your filthy christian whores.

To be fair their video about the "dark ages" talked about the high medieval period, which no one means when they talk about the dark ages

Cite literally any fucking source that validates the "prima nocte" myth you stupid lying cunt.

There are a lot of uninformed people (including in this thread) who claim the entire 500-1500 period was one big dark age.

They have some ups and some downs. When they are good they are good, when they are bad they are bad

Like most things in life

Google search genocide for me please

Trickle down economics is nothing be a pejorative from the left

>the lord literally owns you, your wife, your children, and could kill you and fuck her
Nice meme history

>if he wanted your filthy christian whores.
So you're a Muslim piece of shit? Explains why you're so uneducated.

And by the way, "Prima noche" is literally historical fiction, so fuck off.

The video was obviously aimed at people who think the entirety of the Middle Ages were "dark", or those that believe in myths such as the "Christian Dark Ages". But yeah, they should've made that more clear in the title.

all the whores from the occupation of paris during the 100 years war
>serfs aren't slaves
you're gonna become a serf again if you keep drinking all this christian kool-aid
>you muslim
wrong.

> Except for when it was implemented and spawned a god damn golden age.

When?

I call it trickle down because that's the name it deserves. Supply side economics is a fancy name used to sell a shit ideology, just like how "Intelligent Design" is a fancy name for "Creationist stupidity".

What's wrong with it

That's not a source you lying cunt. Name the document so we can actually check it.

you can't afford it you povertous christian whore

Serfs, not slaves

Oxfird university was founded in the middle ages, for example

He killed millions of communists, how bad could he be?

It's propaganda, but I happen to agree to plenty of it. Still not as bad as Vox. Prager is clearly a conservative brand while Vox pretends to be impartial while being a leftist rag.

>The videos usually feature a public intellectual who argues a particular side of a debate for about five minutes.
Why won't any employers accept my accreditations from Prager U, bros? Have the Cultural Marxists taken over the HR departments at every fast food chain in southern Ohio???

serfs are slaves

>appeal to logic fallacy
Is that not every non-fallacious argument? Am I misreading this or are you saying their argument is fallacious because they appeal to logic?

The free will video
>dude people don't believe in libertarian free will because they hate god lmao

Not him but I assume he means some bullshit "logical" circular thinking like Gödel's ontological proof or something

Which is not circular.....at all.......

It has been shown to lead to modal collapse which leads to statements such as if X is true it's necessarily true

>I happen to agree to plenty of it
lmaoing at u

>jewgle
>le red herring to get away from the substance of his argument strategy

Palestine isn't a nation dumbass. It literally has no legal right to exist

I love that font user is it something special or is it just Edge looking like that

>particular ehtnic gropu
>greentext is a font
Not sure if heebs or just ass-kissing evangelicals

It's not an ethnic group either

>Through most of the first two years of Reagan's first term, Americans already battered by the stagflation of the 1970s had to endure the sharpest recession in decades. The severity of the downturn was largely a consequence of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's determination to end the devastating inflationary trends of the 1970s by any means necessary.

>Following the monetarist teachings of influential University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, Volcker resolved to "slay the inflationary dragon" by sharply curtailing the growth of the money supply. That monetary contraction, imposed starting in 1980, succeeded in its primary objective. The inflation rate fell from a devastating high of 13.5% in 1980 to just 3.2% by 1983.19

>However, it also produced a sharp jump in real interest rates that contributed to the brutal recession of 1981 to 1982. The national unemployment rate exceeded 10% throughout 1982, rendering more Americans jobless than at any time since the Great Depression. Not coincidentally, President Reagan's public approval rating bottomed out at just 35% that same year.

>To his great credit, however, Reagan stuck by Volcker even when it would have been politically expedient for him to pressure the Fed Chairman to expand the money supply to provide a short-term boost to the economy. Both men's patience paid off after 1983, when—with inflation under control at last—the economy began growing again. That growth continued, unabated, through the rest of Reagan's two-term presidency, marking the longest peacetime period of unbroken economic expansion yet seen in American history.

>An even longer boom would occur a decade later, during Bill Clinton's presidency that largely followed Reagan's lead in economic policy.

>Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%. In the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.

this, It makes sense that the less a government taxes it's people while managing to build roads, the more your people will prosper.

He asked about corporate taxes, not inflation

...

Can you expand on it or do you have some source yo read more?

>Wikipedia

>left wingers have a hundred organizations and news outlets dedicated to spreading their ideals, seen as perfectly fine
>right wingers have like 5, total outrage

If you actively seek out "news" from outlets that you know bend in any ideological direction then you deserve to feel bad anyway

>and you were lynching negroes

lmfao at this cuckservative garbage
youtube.com/watch?v=MydjXCHoLo0
>can't go to page and see the sources on wiki

They saw some things which are correct and some things that are incorrect. You've got to understand that a lot of history falls to interpretation, and their interpretation comes from a conservative american worldview. It doesn't mean they're necessarily lying, but they often embellish certain things and leave other stuff out. Bottom line is that their purpose isn't to develop a nuanced and critical understanding of history, but to forward their views in the time-frame of and 8 minute video. If you subscribe to that view and want to hear your opinions parroted back to you, then fine, but don't expect their historical arguments to hold up under further scrutiny.

Do left wingers really have hundreds of news outlets though? Or is this a "everything i dont like is leftism" kind of pots.

> If you are to the left of Breitbart, you are a left winger.

t. Ben Garrison.

youtube.com/watch?v=tN1MkAGuVyY

kek

>Still not as bad as Vox.
You might disagree with Vox's politics, but at least Vox isn't calling itself a university and presenting its viewpoint in the guise of academic lectures. Vox is biased journalism, Prager is a propaganda machine masquerading as educational content. To me that's a very different thing, and it's pretty morally repugnant.

The idea that Palestinians are owed land after they lost in 1948 is ridiculous. Every war subjects the losing populations to exodus; no one cried when Germans were kicked out all over Central Europe after losing WW2.

When did the Anglo start being so devoted to the Jew?

Since Walter Rothschild

If the government taxed less and still built the roads, how were said roads paid for?

Isn't Prager himself Jewish?

>atheshits and liberals getting booty blasted at an old man making youtube videos for young adults

I dislike their blatant bias in favor of jews

>leftists being triggered by a fucking youtube account

>shilling this hard for Israel

Technically it's better to a serf than an out-an-out roman slave
Y'know, it's regulated slavery.

That's not the issue. It's that he has the gall to call his youtube channel 'PragerU' and try to present it as a legitimate institute of higher education.

> a god damn golden age.
That's a funny way of saying 'recession'

Are you blaming corporate tax cuts in the 1980's for the recession in 2008?

Have you not been paying attention to what Kansas did after the 2008 recession?

>corporate tax cuts in the 1980's
Are you confusing tax cuts for causing the economic boom created by Paul Volcker's reforms?

except Republican politicians used the term for decades before 2008 and still sometimes mention it today?

>slowing growth of money supply
>the same as reducing taxes for the rich
dude...

That post literally never mentions lowering taxes once. And your post literally advocates for deficit spending in a somewhat Keynesian way.

He's blaming the continuum of deregulation of the financial sector begun by Reagan for the great recession.

I was actually alluding to Sam Brownback's "great conservative experiment" after 2008 which lead to a crippling government fiscal crisis and growth that lags far behind its neighbors and the national average

but what you said isn't wrong

No they didn't cuck

Their episode on climate change with the guy from greenpeace. The man straight up said "if carbon creates life, how can there be too much of it?" That's the one that truly woke me up to how beyond bullshit Prager is.

Holy SHIT! Right wingers BTFO! It turns out if you don't have an independent monetary policy, you can't go massively into debt

Trickle down economics might make sense if we had a supply problem causing pent up demand for capital. What we have now is an overabundance of capital and credit caused by low interest rates and quantitative easing. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, shuffling it around various tax havens, while doing stock buybacks since they haven't many better ideas what to do with it.

The problem we have now is not insufficient supply, but insufficient demand. Most Americans have had stagnant wages since 1980. If people aren't seeing significant real wage growth they can't spend more, which means corporations won't use the capital they already have to expand production.

Instead of tax cuts for the rich, we should be focused on increasing incomes for average Americans. Investing in infrastructure, free college and trade schools, and scientific research would be among the best ways to improve long term competitiveness.

Meanwhile, California is doing great and keeping its budget deficits under control

What's your point exactly? California could be given to fucking anarchists and still do well

Corporations don't sit on money. If you have such a big issue with them putting money in tax havens, then you should support eliminating the corporate tax and taxing that money through other methods

Oh, and btw, evidence shows that corporate tax cuts boosts productivity, therefore boosting wages. So you're looking for something else

>What's your point exactly? California could be given to fucking anarchists and still do well
That's not true at all. When California was gerrymandered to hell and back and being run by the governator, its finances were a fucking catastrophe

Ok. Cool.

Corporations are indeed sitting on record levels of cash mostly in the form of treasuries and short-term financial investments. They aren't expanding their businesses because they don't see the economic justification for it, in other words, lack of demand. And a tax cut won't solve anything that record low interest rates haven't already.

I've not seen this evidence that corporate tax cuts boost wages.

Ironically, Fox Business of all places is casting doubts on the claim:

>Many economists, tax experts and even some business owners say it's unlikely. Rather than hire, companies might use much of their tax savings to buy back their stock or increase their dividends to investors. Many companies, they note, have already been able to borrow at historically low rates to expand their businesses yet have chosen not to.

foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/09/15/doubts-arise-on-whether-corporate-tax-cut-would-boost-growth.html

What's even more ironic is that we still have a huge budget deficit, yet the "fiscally responsible" are calling for tax cuts that will exacerbate it and worsen the national debt. These idiots who cite the Laffer curve don't realize it has two damn slopes.

>trickle down economics is a lie made by filthy left wingers.

I never said whether or not it boosted growth (it would, at least in the short run)

I said it would boost productivity

>
I've not seen this evidence that corporate tax cuts boost wages.

Maybe you need to educate yourself then?

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q0wFEUoKFf0J:www.nber.org/data-appendix/w19757/CorporateTaxPaper.pdf &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

>"Higher capital per worker means higher labor productivity and, thus,higher real wages. Indeed, in the wage-tax simulation, real wages of unskilled workers end up12 percent higher and those of skilled workers end up 13 percent higher.These higher real wages raise the incentive to work. But they also deliver offsetting incomeeffects that induce less, not more labor supply. The net impact is a modest decrease over timein the supply of labor. But, on balance, output rises – by 8 percent in the short term, 10 percent2

>in the intermediate term, and 8 percent in the long term – all relative to the level of GDP in thebaseline path."

>Simulating the Elimination of the U.S. Corporate Income Tax
>Simulating

And productivity has been decoupled from real wages for the past several decades. The assumption to that simulation is flawed from the start.

The corporate tax boosts productivity. Productivity boosts wages. This is very well accepted economic theory.

btw,

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FwF92wc30P4J:https://files.stlouisfed.org/research/publications/es/07/ES0707.pdf &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

>Over long periods of time, increases in “real” wages—that is, wages adjusted for changes in consumer prices—reflect increases in labor productivity.

You use CPI inflation, add in non-wage goods, and suddenly it follows it perfectly

Those cached papers from 2007 are goofy as hell.

Productivity gains have evidently not led to increased real wages. In reality, we've seen is a greater share of gains go to capital and management, as indicated by growing income inequality.

Assuming that paper's explanation that say employer healthcare makes up the difference is true, it's both an extreme indictment against U.S. healthcare and the rise of part-time work / the gig economy. It's basically saying employer healthcare has consumed multiple decades worth of real wage growth, thus strangling consumption in every other sector. It also fails to explain why the same pattern of real wage growth has decoupled from productivity in nations with universal health care systems.

>Over the past two decades, aggregate labour productivity growth in most OECD countries has decoupled
from real median compensation growth, implying that raising productivity is no longer sufficient to raise
real wages for the typical worker. This paper provides a quantitative description of decoupling in OECD
countries over the past two decades, with the results suggesting that it is explained by declines in both
labour shares and the ratio of median to average wages (a partial measure of wage inequality).

oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivity-Macro-level-facts.pdf

> In reality, we've seen is a greater share of gains go to capital and management, as indicated by growing income inequality.

You know why this is? This is because the change in technology benefits the well educated and the owners of capital over the less well educated, along with trade and immigration. Economists from all over the political spectrum agree with this.

You're attributing things that simply can NOT be attributed.

>Those cached papers from 2007 are goofy as hell.

The point is, is that the gap between labour productivity and wage growth can be attributed to other factors, such as the increase in non-wage benefits. This is also the case in the UK (I'm fairly sure I can find the paper if you wish to read it)

>from real median compensation growth, implying that raising productivity is no longer sufficient to raise
real wages for the typical worker.

The only method of improving wage growth over the long-run is improving productivity.

>If you have such a big issue with them putting money in tax havens, then you should support eliminating the corporate tax and taxing that money through other methods
Are you saying that if you don't want companies to evade taxes then you should stop taxing them?

...

>they're right wing ideologues.
yup, pretty much this, dennis prager is pretty open about this, so at least he recognizes his bias

Vox is liberal, not leftist. They were in the tank for Clinton in 2016 over Sanders.

Not necessarily. When you want to tax companies, you want to tax those who own them. Correct?

I'm saying that we tax them through other ways, because the corporate tax is so ineffective at actually targeting the owners of the companies

All I know is I pay taxes, and if I have to do it then goddammit you aren't getting out of it just because you owe more than me. That has always been my stance, nothing more.

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

>no one cried when Germans were kicked out all over Central Europe after losing WW2.

Two wrongs don't make a right