I don't just learn about economics from him, he teaches me how to think critically. Like the way he questions stats. A classic example is how he breaks down that per capita income is a better indicator of wealth than household income
We are, but what will we do with it? We won't have him forever. We don't hear much about Milton Friedman anymore unless you are a fan and Walter Williams was so understated you had to be looking for him. We have to keep pushing Sowell's ideas forward. I think it is common sense to some of us but that is in short supply these days.
We live in a time of Nazism and neo fuedalism. If only we lived in a time of Thomas sowell. That will never happen. His work will always be appreciated by the minority while the majority vote their freedom away for the promise of safety. The weak always prevail over the strong because the weak are the many and democracy is majority rule.
@ferarzo Your insults will not change facts. My comment was generic enough that I'm surprised that it even caught your attention. Perhaps you aren't able to explain your Economic point of view in a coherent manner. Why didn't you deconstruct the argument of this video in a way that makes sense? Oh right, it's much easier to spit insults. Children do that quite often it seems. And why do you care so much what I think anyway? Something else must be at play to draw such a response. Perhaps you were just bored, or frustrated with your life and being a bully. Perhaps you didn't like the fact that I commented at all. Me in particular. But don't bother answering, I won't see it, I mute rude people like you. Have a nice day. 😁😂👍🏾
No..they have it...they don't care. They want money. None of these politicians are ignorant of this. THey ALL have plans..and those plans are to get rich, while the PEOPLE don't. Basic human greed. Those with Money and Power...want more money and power.
One of my greatest fears is that Dr Sowell is reaching the end of his life but there no-one with such knowledge, wisdom and presence to replace him, and we will all be worse off becasue of that.
@@samuelhoran7898 Neither are highly regarded economists with expert level knowledge of the subject matter. Sowell literally wrote the book on many of these topics. It's a huge gap to fill after he passes
I knew a guy in college who worked for a financial guy. They went to people with private corporations who had heavily overfunded pensions. They would do some transfers, extract the overfunded amount and charge 30% for doing it. People paid because the government penalty for being overfunded was 50%. Avoiding taxes has costs. If paying taxes costs less than avoiding taxes, people will pay the taxes.
I can’t tell if Reich is misremembering history and misjudging human nature or just being dishonest. Banks weren’t “allowed” to make risky investments, they were forced to give mortgages to poor prospects.
I dunno - a pompous midget who gets it wrong EVERY TIME might be remembered. He has a spectacular record of failure. Perhaps not the epic fails of Custer but pretty awful.
I love Thomas's quote at 7:34, "Those on the left often act as if human beings are just like inert blocks of wood or like chess pieces that you can move around on a chessboard wherever you want... to carry out some grand design.". Freedom, liberty, and free markets have historically produced better results.
I argue that once income taxes, from all levels of government combined, (Federal, State, City), exceeds 50%, a person is no longer a citizen in a free country, but is in fact a slave to the state.
We are a slave once we even submit to it. SCOTUS in Merchant’s Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka in 1921 ruled that the 16th amendment authorized an excise tax on corporate profits & was not a direct tax on any form of income as that direct tax would’ve been subjected to the apportionment clause.
Trickle down forces you to accept the premise that no matter how much you earn, someone who didn’t is still entitled to it. A tax cut is a tax cut. That’s it. We have no other motive or plan for how money circulates in an economy. They think we have an obligation to still give it to them just for being alive. Don’t accept the premise. Attack this aspect of THEIR greed and sense of entitlement, not yours.
@@gorilladisco9108 Funny, most "socialists" don't have a job, where they actually have to work for their money, they'd rather live off others, Karl Marx is the Poster Child for that, he never worked a day in his life, he lived off family and friends.
It's the same thing as the term Capitalism. Prior to Karl Marx, the free market had no official title. It was just how people did business with each other, since the Dawn of Man.
@Ed Johnson you either weren’t alive or were a child in the 1980s because they were pushing the trickle down theory as a euphemism for supply side economics right from the Reagan White House.
Substantially older than that, Herr von Lipwig. The earliest reference I've found to this expression is by American actor & humorist, Will Rogers. Rogers died in 1935 at the much too young age of 56. Thus, the expression has been extant in American English for at least 87 years. If you find an earlier reference many people would like to hear about it.
@@CrazyManwich "he did say that but not in reference to supply side economics." Will Rogers had an instinctive & untutored (i.e., not formally educated) understanding of economics, so this is true. [As an aside I suspect that Rogers had a much better practical understanding of economics than most -- if not all -- current politicians. ] And, inasmuch as the expression 'supply side economics' did not enter the popular vocabulary (as opposed to the professional vocabulary of economists) until the 1980s, Rogers would not have known that expression.
Part of the problem is the knowledge of common man. We are ignorant when it comes to how taxes work. But most of us know how simple economics in everyday life work. To us you reduced what your employer pays you and your income goes down. That is the way they see taxes. The rich pay 39% and we reduce it to 35% we have lost 4% of their taxes. But we don't see that because they now have $4 more for every $100 they are investing in something, or freeing up money for Joe Plumber to expand his business. They have increased their taxable income, perhaps by more than what they were paying at the higher rate. The second point is a rich person may be worth $50,000,000 but they don't pay tax on that. Their income could be $100,000 and that is what they pay tax on. And they have a team of accountants who make sure for reporting purpose that is what their income is, not the $250,000 it may be. If I'm not mistaken but I believe Regan sealed some of those tax loopholes. I'm surprised the tax them people haven't tried to push a bill where you have to pay tax on your worth and your income. So the first year our rich person pays $14,500,000 or 29%. The second year they pay $10,295,000 on 35,500,000. Third year $7,309,450 on $25,205,000. At the end of the third year they are at $18,216,495. In three years they lost $25,525,945 to the government. (Someone check my math please. This doesn't sound right to me.) How many more years can they keep doing this? And how many will renounce their US citizenship and move to a tax friendly country along with their business.
What’s interesting is the trump tax cuts brought in more revenue as well for the government. I love the education of Thomas and should be a must read for schools.
Also increased deficit spending by 17% over the course of a decade. Plus the guy passed COVID emergency spending which massively increased national debt.
A flat tax of 0% would be perfect. A flat sales tax is the answer. Tax people for consumption, not production. Then it's voluntary. Choose to save, then pay no tax. Choose to spend, pay the tax. Voluntary.
@@jasonboursaw3258 man will never figure this out as your dealing with sinful corruptible humans. no matter what laws come to pass which are decent, the application will be corrupted and those in power will destroy society either way. greed, selfishness, envy pride etc are not just sin in wealthy classes it is part of all our nature and the temptation will be to abuse priveleges you get such as seat in congress seat in a corporate structure etc. it will take devine intervention, just read why ecclessiastes 4:1 explains why
Income tax is analogous to punishment for productivity. The only "fair" tax is a gross-receipts tax - which is a tax on commerce...in other words, you play - you pay. If you don't engage in purchasing over-the-counter merchandise, you don't pay taxes. There needs to be a surtax on transportation and infrastructure maintenance...payed by those who use those grids.
There's truly nothing more painful than someone who doesn't know economics. Which is why I love listening to Thomas Sowell; his knowledge of economics brings harmony to my soul.
Sowell's theories have been debunked so many times that I almost have stopped listening to him, except for amusement. A little research into Reaganomics will reveal that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts actually lowered revenues and contributed to increasing the deficit. Reagan quickly did what he called tax reform (i.e. - raise taxes in certain areas and on certain tax brackets and companies) as well as attempting to work with the FED to temporarily increase interest rates to lower inflation and that was the cause of his increased revenue during the second half of his administration. The secret to Ronald Reagan's success was that he was willing to learn and adapt - which is why I voted for him twice. Even he recognized trickle-down doesn't work.
Progressives. Progressives don’t just advocate revisionist history they believe their lies. For example somehow the Republicans are responsible for Jim Crowe and the KKK.
Government regulations in health care has kept me from the health care I need. Government regulations! Obama Care! I have been in or associated in health care since in vitro! My father being in medicine eight years before my birth!
in recent times there has been a flood of funds to the rich. we're entitled to a corner but are not the prime movers in economic progress. that is mostly down to innovative smaller business and first generation commerce. the big tax issues are loopholes and lack of audits..........top marginal rates could also be raised.
This "trickle down" argument and those who oppose it on opposite sides of the political spectrum seems like merely a lot of window dressing to me. Our governments, whether liberal or conservative, _always_ outspend what they bring in through taxation and supplement it through borrowing. Thus we have federal debts that are so huge there is no reasonable expectation that they can ever be paid off. And eventually the amount of money needed to service simply the interest payments on the debt gets to the point where the financial solvency of the nation literally dissolves and they go bankrupt. It is the same whether you are an individual or a country. _You can't spend or borrow more than you can pay for!_ And that is when politicians on every side of the equation begin telling you that "the national debt doesn't matter" (George W. Bush in the 2000s) and "the budget will take care of itself" (Justin Trudeau recently). They are _all_ a pack of fibbers (to put it politely) or are too ignorant to be allowed governmental power by a rational people. There is an old proverb that is just as true today as it ever has been. "You can lay every economist end to end and they will still never reach a conclusion." The final and simple verdict on all this is: politicians try to buy your votes with more and more expenditures funded by either taxation or borrowing. _And you, dear taxpayer, are the one who has to pay for all of it!_ If you can't figure this out then you are only along for the ride and will get to enjoy the crash when it all hits the wall at 100 mph. Start looking for God because He is the only one who can save you when this all gets reduced to rubble. 🤷♂️
What if tax was a flat 10%? How about the government should run on that 10%. Taxes should only happen once. You should only be taxed when you buy a new product, if you buy a used product the tax has already been paid once. We are tired of all this taxation and giant government waste of our tax dollars.
flat taxes are regressive. A flat tax would give less buying power to the middle and lower income bracket, especially when you factor in cost of living expenses.
@@jameslay1489How is that a problem? Not everything is going to effect everyone equally. The rich benefit more form some policies, and the poor benefit more from others.
@@sebastianlucas704 because it still creates inequality. Flat taxes are regressive, the only people who really want them implemented are the wealthy because they know they will benefit the most. Those that aren't wealthy and support it have been hoodwinked into believing it's a fair tax system. Under a flat tax system the buying power of the middle and lower income tax bracket would be significantly less.
We need Thomas Sowell as president. Ben Carson as vice president. Or, Ben Carson as president and Larry Elder as vice president. The far left like radical change. Well...This would be a sensible right wing radical change.
No! Down vote for you! This has been addressed many times. TS is not interested in politics and for good reason. The social pressures of the campaigning would encourage him to compromise his morals which he does not want. We need men like TS in the civilian and academia realm. Plz folks stop saying these stupid comments.
idk that they have a ton of overlap Maybe if they went the Schiepek/Hayes route of emergent stress effective response but that still deviates from Sowell's wheelhouse.
Pria, That's not exactly the case. Rich people have learned how to make and how to save money. Therefore they shelter and protect their assets by moving them into tax protected "commodities", etc. In other words they take advantage of government created tax incentives some call tax loopholes.
yes, and trickle down has never been a real thing. The flaw is that it inherently assumes that a) money given to above is somehow entitled to below, and b) money "given" is somehow owed/owned by someone else, all socialist/marxist beliefs in disguise. The reality is everyone, regardless of financial classification, will attempt to avoid government taking their money, so the more rules you create to steal money, the more hidden and stagnate the money becomes. when there is more freedom in the economic sector, people are more liberal and active with their wealth. thus, by increasing taxes, you quell activity, and by lowering taxes/regulations, you encourage activity. that's all. no trickle up, down, left, or right. it's applies equally across all financial classifications. less oppression, more activity and freedom. high taxes and regulations are just like quarantine lockdowns and masks of the social world, but then when the money is locked down they are actually dumb enough to ask "why is financial activity (economy) dropping?" one clearly follows the other. basic concept rooted in basic liberty which, of course, communists and socialists and leftists can't comprehend because they don't understand freedom and liberty.
I first heard of trickledown economics during the Reagan years. I assumed it came from the Reagan camp. Made sense that if an economy prospers it grows providing more jobs and with that more opportunity for people to start new businesses and so on. The trick is how to stimulate that growth.
I have told people for a long time trickle-up certainly isn't a thing I've never been given a job by a poor person Always by somebody that had a lot more money than I did and it trickled down into my pocket a little bit
true, but trickle down has never been a real thing. The flaw is that it inherently assumes that a) money given to above is somehow entitled to below, and b) money "given" is somehow owed/owned by someone else, all socialist/marxist beliefs in disguise. The reality is everyone, regardless of financial classification, will attempt to avoid government taking their money, so the more rules you create to steal money, the more hidden and stagnate the money becomes. when there is more freedom in the economic sector, people are more liberal and active with their wealth. thus, by increasing taxes, you quell activity, and by lowering taxes/regulations, you encourage activity. that's all. no trickle up, down, left, or right. it's applies equally across all financial classifications. less oppression, more activity and freedom. high taxes and regulations are just like quarantine lockdowns and masks of the social world, but then when the money is locked down they are actually dumb enough to ask "why is financial activity (economy) dropping?" one clearly follows the other. basic concept rooted in basic liberty which, of course, communists and socialists and leftists can't comprehend because they don't understand freedom and liberty.
Things one needs to take to grave- Every Bee Gee/Elvis/70s Disco Album, Every 70s Godzilla action figure, every Six Million Dollar Man episode, anything written by Prof. Sowell.😎
@Lord Phontaroy - Absolutely not. Clinton himself (the first president to not experience the Great Depression & New Deal from then on) repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall act which opened the doors for financial cooperations (mostly lobbied by credit card banks) to gamble on the stock market freely again leading to a liquidity shortfall by risky overspending eventually bringing the web down when one of their financial conglomerates crashed
"Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will. " Gustave de Molinari
The funny thing is that this is the exact same response the Nordic economies experienced. “Why is our economy stagnating? Do we need to raise taxes on income higher?” It turns out when you took away everyone’s income to build wealth, they don’t produce 😂 who would of known. Surely not the mainstream economist.
The difference is one position is based on emotion and the other is based on the more complex interaction of economic facts. "They have more money and should pay more so raise their taxes" is a very emotional and simplistic way to look at things. Also, is the goal to make the rich have less money, or is the goal to raise tax revenue? If you want the government to have more tax revenue to spend ( a dubious position ) then you want the rich to be using their money in the market transactionally so that those transactions can be taxed.
@@jfarrell9915They still pay more collectively than we working class do collectively, *with* the loopholes and discounts. Incidentally, those loopholes and discounts are *features* of the progressive tax system people like Reich favour. Two words for you; Laffer Curve.
@@Si_Mondo i'm not anti laffer curve but it is over applied. .............. closing usa tax loopholes and many more audits will yield hugely, particularly as usa citizens are taxed world wide.
Something I've learned from Thomas Sowell is that I now instantly distrust assertions made without exemplary evidence, especially when those assertions point to a single cause for societal issues. Robert Reichs statement about deregulation being directly causal to the outrageous healthcare costs & market crashes is a perfect example of such nonsense.
The seeds of the 2008 crisis weren't that banks were "allowed" to make risky bets. They were FORCED TO, by the government. Forced to lend on homes to people who had no business taking out a mortgage!
"The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea" "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." - David Stockman, The Atlantic
Stockman criticised the cuts because they didn't cut the spending. The cuts to taxes were fine, as long as government spending was cut also. Though he was budget director (first term only, and not the whole term) all of his suggestions were ignored. He's been on Tom Woods' podcast (a couple of years ago now) talking about that time.
A fun way to assess a controversial issue is to listen and genuinely try to understand the best arguments and counter arguments from both sides…the first side that resorts to misrepresenting, strawmanning, or accusing the other of bad intentions rather than honestly addressing their position, is in the wrong every single time. Sounds obvious but most people seem incapable of doing it
'The term “trickle-down economics” was actually coined by Will Rogers, a humorist, journalist, and radio personality, in the 1920s to mock President Herbert Hoover’s policies during the Great Depression. Rogers used the term to sarcastically describe the idea that benefits to the wealthy would “trickle down” to the general population.'
I'm partial to trickle up economics. I studied the budgets in tax cut years. Government spending went up EVERY year. There were never tax cuts, they were cuts in 'proposed' budgets.
The Biden-Harris administration has no legal right to cancel student loans. However, it wouldn't cost anything if they cut expenditures the same amount. I have a student loan that I struggle to pay (until it vanished; my loan servicer now claims they've never heard of me). I didn't want it forgiven; I wanted the government to fix the job market so that I could afford to pay it! There are no full-time jobs available to me because of Obamacare.
I hear the argument on trickle down economics often that tax cuts cant ensure the business spend the money on business and cant ensure the money goes to the employee instead of the owner of the business because Money doesn't trickle down. There is another logical side to the argument that most people forget and that is that cost does trickle down and taxes are part of the cost of business. If a business has a tax increase of 10% of their gross income that means a 10% loss of profit. 10% loss of profit cold mean the life or death of a small business and for a larger business it means reducing cost either by buying cheaper goods, reducing wage cost or higher prices usually all three. People cant seem to understand that while 1 dollars an hour per employee doesnt seem like a lot of money if you have 2 million employees it is a total raise of 4,160,000,000 dollars per year
PROFIT is a relative term, its relative to the percentage left over revenue from the business' monthly expenses of earned revenue(utilities rent maintenance salaries benefits vendor fees ect)
It's true; logic is the tool of the white man to oppress others. Can't build an egalitarian socialist utopia atop things like 'rationalism' and 'empiricism'.
Sigh, indeed, Mr 2017. When used as an adjective 'racist' means "having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another" (according to Merriam-Webster). Can you clarify how can a 'fact' ('a thing that is indisputably the case' -- also according to M-W) be racist? Can facts have beliefs?
"I hate to break it to you, Mr. Sowell;but" but you're lying @P& 2017 == that's the main kicker here, you want to break a viewpoint you love to tear down for the thrill of making yourself look smart which is quite a failure.
This is so relevant now in UK. I'd love to know what Dr. Sowell thinks of the new UK Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's tax cuts and what actions are needed going forward in the UK
I am sorry. i dont get it and I try. But if supply side economics works, why is it so bad right now? Why are things so pricey and the elites so wealthy? Why can coorperations like amazon pay 0 taxes in 2020. I realy want to understand. Would someone be so kind as to explain it to me?
They should tax everyone at 10%, then everyone would have skin in the game. It should be a constitutional amendment, then it’s can’t be raised and our leaders can move on to more important things.
@@Ajourneyofknowing I know it would never work because it would never be done. They hold on to this division like they hold on to racism. They will never let it go.
AND if you are on welfare, you cannot vote for 12 months after you go off welfare. it is insanity to allow people who are bumming/leeching from the system to decide where the system allocates its money. that's like allowing an non-retired thief to design security for the bank. if you are contributing more than you're taking (net positive input), then you get a share/say in how the system functions an what it does with its wealth/power. if you're subsidized, you should get no share authority. universal suffrage was marxism for democracy, and that was the beginning of the fall of western society (slow but inevitable).
Over the past 40 years real wages have COMPLETELY failed to keep pace with gains in productivity growth. The vast majority of people depend on wages alone so this is a very real thing in the lives of most Americans. Gains have mostly gone to capital and capital owners. The gains have passed through the system, inflated assets, executive income and shareholder returns. Monetary policy does not target capital as clearly and directly as labor. Discussing tax rates rather than how factor shares are spilt in the economy is a smoke screen. Repeat real wages have not at all kept pace wth ... CAPITAL GAINS.
But, why would anyone want more revenue for the government? Every penny that’s not given to police protection, court adjudication, and military protection- protecting private property, contracts and national borders- is diverted from the private, productive, trading economy.
Agreed, but that’s a separate argument. I think this argument shows the lunacy of progressives who want more tax revenue but will go against a proven method of increasing revenue by implementing tax hikes because of what it appears to do instead of what it actually does.
Because if it isn't taken as tax revenue, it'll be taken in inflation-related taxation, which is much worse. If you want to cut down those things, cutting spending is the only way.
it's about effeciency. once again, you're going into the zero-sum mindset. leftists always assume that for one side to gain, the other must lose. that's a zero sum. in truth, both can benefit/profit simultaneously. this is reality, but only if you have liberty and deregulation.
Barney Frank was part of the cause of the 2008 crisis because of he told regulators to not try reduce unsustainable loans. Another big factor was credit default swaps. Check it out.
@@jfarrell9915 I think I remember reading that Frank's boyfriend was getting big bonuses. I suspect another motivation was to buy votes from people getting the loans that they could not repay.
We are privileged to live through a time of Thomas Sowell
I don't just learn about economics from him, he teaches me how to think critically. Like the way he questions stats. A classic example is how he breaks down that per capita income is a better indicator of wealth than household income
We are, but what will we do with it? We won't have him forever. We don't hear much about Milton Friedman anymore unless you are a fan and Walter Williams was so understated you had to be looking for him.
We have to keep pushing Sowell's ideas forward. I think it is common sense to some of us but that is in short supply these days.
Indeed it is true. This is the way
We live in a time of Nazism and neo fuedalism. If only we lived in a time of Thomas sowell. That will never happen. His work will always be appreciated by the minority while the majority vote their freedom away for the promise of safety. The weak always prevail over the strong because the weak are the many and democracy is majority rule.
That we are!
And that's why I like facts and empirical data as opposed to Political Rhetoric. Great video.
Actually the facts are against you... you are just not smart enough and too lazy to do your own research
@ferarzo Your insults will not change facts. My comment was generic enough that I'm surprised that it even caught your attention.
Perhaps you aren't able to explain your Economic point of view in a coherent manner. Why didn't you deconstruct the argument of this video in a way that makes sense?
Oh right, it's much easier to spit insults. Children do that quite often it seems.
And why do you care so much what I think anyway? Something else must be at play to draw such a response.
Perhaps you were just bored, or frustrated with your life and being a bully. Perhaps you didn't like the fact that I commented at all. Me in particular.
But don't bother answering, I won't see it, I mute rude people like you. Have a nice day. 😁😂👍🏾
@@lsporter88 lol...u are completely clueless... 😂
@@FLAC2023 Throwing stones and saying nothing. Why not enlighten us with your pearls of wisdom? Have you none to share?
maybe Obama still doesnt understand economy so he has to stick in white house beyond terms.
I am an Australian and I appreciate the wisdom of Sowell. It’s sad he doesn’t get enough recognition.
He’s getting it now ❤
My favorite author, Thomas Sowell, and I have enjoyed many of his books.
Oh if only....if only our current bunch of politicians had just the tiniest amount of economic knowledge of Dr. Sowell.....if only!
Tax cut = more revenue for gov. High tax, more regulations, more license, more safety camera, etc = revenues for politicians.
No..they have it...they don't care. They want money. None of these politicians are ignorant of this. THey ALL have plans..and those plans are to get rich, while the PEOPLE don't. Basic human greed. Those with Money and Power...want more money and power.
First rule of Politics is to Disregard the first rule of Economics
They don't and they refuse to listen to the people who do.
I gotta wonder if they are as ignorant as they act.
One of my greatest fears is that Dr Sowell is reaching the end of his life but there no-one with such knowledge, wisdom and presence to replace him, and we will all be worse off becasue of that.
From Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell, I wonder who will step up to the plate.
Douglas Murray and Ben Shapiro are good.
@@aaronyepez6148 Peter Schiff.
@@samuelhoran7898 Neither are highly regarded economists with expert level knowledge of the subject matter. Sowell literally wrote the book on many of these topics. It's a huge gap to fill after he passes
I have the same concern.
Genius. This caricature of economics can also explain other caricatures: “Don’t Say Gay,” “anti-racism,” etc.
Politics is all about narratives and framing. The Democrats have learned this already the Republicans refuse to.
@@eoinfrompartsunknown Republicans simply carry water for the dems while pretending to do anything
Gay.
Gay
Really it's not "don't say gay," but "say gay in grades 4 & up."
I knew a guy in college who worked for a financial guy. They went to people with private corporations who had heavily overfunded pensions. They would do some transfers, extract the overfunded amount and charge 30% for doing it. People paid because the government penalty for being overfunded was 50%.
Avoiding taxes has costs. If paying taxes costs less than avoiding taxes, people will pay the taxes.
No one will remember Robert Reich, Thomas Sowell's legacy will live on forever.
I can’t tell if Reich is misremembering history and misjudging human nature or just being dishonest. Banks weren’t “allowed” to make risky investments, they were forced to give mortgages to poor prospects.
I dunno - a pompous midget who gets it wrong EVERY TIME might be remembered. He has a spectacular record of failure. Perhaps not the epic fails of Custer but pretty awful.
Reich is a clown.
I dunno, he’s a fascinating example of a dwarf overcoming adversity
Same as PKrugman - see Thomas Woods and Robert Murphy’s ‘Contra Krugman’ podcast -
I love Thomas's quote at 7:34, "Those on the left often act as if human beings are just like inert blocks of wood or like chess pieces that you can move around on a chessboard wherever you want... to carry out some grand design.". Freedom, liberty, and free markets have historically produced better results.
I argue that once income taxes, from all levels of government combined, (Federal, State, City), exceeds 50%, a person is no longer a citizen in a free country, but is in fact a slave to the state.
Sounds about right
We are a slave once we even submit to it. SCOTUS in Merchant’s Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka in 1921 ruled that the 16th amendment authorized an excise tax on corporate profits & was not a direct tax on any form of income as that direct tax would’ve been subjected to the apportionment clause.
Serfs only had to give the lord of the manor 1/3 of their production. So using that historical note what does that make us?
I'm going to argue 25%.
Are taxes legal?
Thomas Sowell is indeed an epic force to be reckoned with and I applaud and commend his efforts to inform the public about things like this..
Sowell may be the greatest economic mind of our time. I love hearing him speak. Calming.
Trickle down is a propaganda term straw-manning supply focused economics.
Venezuela has a 'trickle-down' economy.
Trickle down forces you to accept the premise that no matter how much you earn, someone who didn’t is still entitled to it.
A tax cut is a tax cut. That’s it. We have no other motive or plan for how money circulates in an economy. They think we have an obligation to still give it to them just for being alive.
Don’t accept the premise. Attack this aspect of THEIR greed and sense of entitlement, not yours.
Trickle down is how socialists try to explain how economy works, and they get an F for the effort.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@gorilladisco9108 Funny, most "socialists" don't have a job, where they actually have to work for their money, they'd rather live off others, Karl Marx is the Poster Child for that, he never worked a day in his life, he lived off family and friends.
It's the same thing as the term Capitalism.
Prior to Karl Marx, the free market had no official title. It was just how people did business with each other, since the Dawn of Man.
I like how Sowell just stops and thinks for 5 minutes and understands things others can’t even fathom 😂😂😂
Always an education. Thank you
Want to have fun with tax debates?
Tell a Proggie you advocate the same tax policies as JFK because they worked for Coolidge, Reagan, Bush, and Trump.
Says the three percenter
@The Esquire of Sports ® Well their capacity for self deception is rather formidable.
Yes @@Ajourneyofknowing we threepers are just as opposed to confiscatory taxation as we are to victim disarming arms prohibition.
@@happydee6950 - all three things you just said are complete myths
@@Ajourneyofknowing Pathological liars like you are functionally incapable of accurately telling others what it true or false.
The closest anyone has come to saying trickle down (and he didn’t say it either) was JFK when he explained that, “…a rising tide floats all boats…”.
Will Rogers.
@@daviddegraff5137, what about him?
@Ed Johnson you either weren’t alive or were a child in the 1980s because they were pushing the trickle down theory as a euphemism for supply side economics right from the Reagan White House.
@@CuttinEJ I believe he made a joke about it
@@iamjustsaying4787 i don't recall that...I do remember Democrats calling it Trickle-down back then
Let it be known that Thomas Sowell is my hero. I hold him in the same esteem as George Washington and Ben Franklin.
Between Thomas Sowell and the late Milton Friedman we get fed with solid understandable economic wisdom.
Brilliance. Am learning a lot here
I agree 👍.
Same. It's like all the things you learned growing up all turn out to be lies. Thomas Sowell is an intellectual saviour.
"trickle-down economics" was the "don't say gay bill" of the 80s. language based on a lie.
Substantially older than that, Herr von Lipwig. The earliest reference I've found to this expression is by American actor & humorist, Will Rogers. Rogers died in 1935 at the much too young age of 56. Thus, the expression has been extant in American English for at least 87 years. If you find an earlier reference many people would like to hear about it.
@@rogerforsberg3910 he did say that but not in reference to supply side economics.
@@CrazyManwich "he did say that but not in reference to supply side economics."
Will Rogers had an instinctive & untutored (i.e., not formally educated) understanding of economics, so this is true. [As an aside I suspect that Rogers had a much better practical understanding of economics than most -- if not all -- current politicians. ]
And, inasmuch as the expression 'supply side economics' did not enter the popular vocabulary (as opposed to the professional vocabulary of economists) until the 1980s, Rogers would not have known that expression.
I love working for rich folks. They are honest, friendly, thrifty, trustworthy, and they pay very good.
It’s a strawman argument that creates a caricature in order to make your argument look effective.
So in other words, every leftist argument on every kind of topic.
Rich Reich should know all about baloney, he is full of it.
I met him once as a news reporter and he really is a small man in every way.
I have no Idea what Robert Riech is saying. How does increasing taxes on big corporations incentivies them to lower the cost of products and services.
Part of the problem is the knowledge of common man. We are ignorant when it comes to how taxes work. But most of us know how simple economics in everyday life work. To us you reduced what your employer pays you and your income goes down. That is the way they see taxes. The rich pay 39% and we reduce it to 35% we have lost 4% of their taxes. But we don't see that because they now have $4 more for every $100 they are investing in something, or freeing up money for Joe Plumber to expand his business. They have increased their taxable income, perhaps by more than what they were paying at the higher rate.
The second point is a rich person may be worth $50,000,000 but they don't pay tax on that. Their income could be $100,000 and that is what they pay tax on. And they have a team of accountants who make sure for reporting purpose that is what their income is, not the $250,000 it may be. If I'm not mistaken but I believe Regan sealed some of those tax loopholes. I'm surprised the tax them people haven't tried to push a bill where you have to pay tax on your worth and your income. So the first year our rich person pays $14,500,000 or 29%. The second year they pay $10,295,000 on 35,500,000. Third year $7,309,450 on $25,205,000. At the end of the third year they are at $18,216,495. In three years they lost $25,525,945 to the government. (Someone check my math please. This doesn't sound right to me.) How many more years can they keep doing this? And how many will renounce their US citizenship and move to a tax friendly country along with their business.
Simply amazing
What’s interesting is the trump tax cuts brought in more revenue as well for the government. I love the education of Thomas and should be a must read for schools.
Also increased deficit spending by 17% over the course of a decade. Plus the guy passed COVID emergency spending which massively increased national debt.
@@dimitrijejovanovich6488 I agree the spending was out of control, I was just talking the impact of tax cuts bringing in more revenue.
facts please about trump tax cuts bringing in more funds..........not much good done for national deficit.................
God Bless!
Thank you for sharing your great scholarly academic research with us! I am learning a great deal!
I don't know who posts these videos. But you're awesome 👍🏻
Another topic well explained 👏. Excellent as always 👌. Sir.
A flat tax may be the answer.
A flat tax of 0% would be perfect.
A flat sales tax is the answer.
Tax people for consumption, not production.
Then it's voluntary.
Choose to save, then pay no tax. Choose to spend, pay the tax.
Voluntary.
Unfortunately prices would just go sky high..
@@jasonboursaw3258 man will never figure this out as your dealing with sinful corruptible humans. no matter what laws come to pass which are decent, the application will be corrupted and those in power will destroy society either way. greed, selfishness, envy pride etc are not just sin in wealthy classes it is part of all our nature and the temptation will be to abuse priveleges you get such as seat in congress seat in a corporate structure etc. it will take devine intervention, just read why ecclessiastes 4:1 explains why
Mostly, it is the deductions and exemptions that are the problem, though high top rates are an issue.
Reich is such an empty shell
Income tax is analogous to punishment for productivity. The only "fair" tax is a gross-receipts tax - which is a tax on commerce...in other words, you play - you pay. If you don't engage in purchasing over-the-counter merchandise, you don't pay taxes. There needs to be a surtax on transportation and infrastructure maintenance...payed by those who use those grids.
Is not the gross receipts tax similar to a VAT tax? Also, would not Walmart and Amazon be the largest collection points of this tax?
Tax cuts are meaningless without spending cuts.
There's truly nothing more painful than someone who doesn't know economics. Which is why I love listening to Thomas Sowell; his knowledge of economics brings harmony to my soul.
Sowell's theories have been debunked so many times that I almost have stopped listening to him, except for amusement. A little research into Reaganomics will reveal that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts actually lowered revenues and contributed to increasing the deficit. Reagan quickly did what he called tax reform (i.e. - raise taxes in certain areas and on certain tax brackets and companies) as well as attempting to work with the FED to temporarily increase interest rates to lower inflation and that was the cause of his increased revenue during the second half of his administration. The secret to Ronald Reagan's success was that he was willing to learn and adapt - which is why I voted for him twice. Even he recognized trickle-down doesn't work.
It’s funny how hysterical Rob Reich sounds at the end of that clip
And he completely misses that 2008 housing bubble was caused by government loosening lending criteria to allow credit risky people to buy houses.
Who is stupid? There's no such thing as trickle down economics!
Progressives.
Progressives don’t just advocate revisionist history they believe their lies. For example somehow the Republicans are responsible for Jim Crowe and the KKK.
@@happydee6950 Careful there. If the Progressives have it their way the word deregulation would be clan speak🤣
Government regulations in health care has kept me from the health care I need. Government regulations! Obama Care! I have been in or associated in health care since in vitro! My father being in medicine eight years before my birth!
Higher tax rates for the rich are about punishment and preventing anyone not in government from getting ahead, plain and simple.
in recent times there has been a flood of funds to the rich. we're entitled to a corner but are not the prime movers in economic progress. that is mostly down to innovative smaller business and first generation commerce.
the big tax issues are loopholes and lack of audits..........top marginal rates could also be raised.
@@jfarrell9915 mainly government officials
This "trickle down" argument and those who oppose it on opposite sides of the political spectrum seems like merely a lot of window dressing to me. Our governments, whether liberal or conservative, _always_ outspend what they bring in through taxation and supplement it through borrowing. Thus we have federal debts that are so huge there is no reasonable expectation that they can ever be paid off. And eventually the amount of money needed to service simply the interest payments on the debt gets to the point where the financial solvency of the nation literally dissolves and they go bankrupt. It is the same whether you are an individual or a country. _You can't spend or borrow more than you can pay for!_
And that is when politicians on every side of the equation begin telling you that "the national debt doesn't matter" (George W. Bush in the 2000s) and "the budget will take care of itself" (Justin Trudeau recently). They are _all_ a pack of fibbers (to put it politely) or are too ignorant to be allowed governmental power by a rational people.
There is an old proverb that is just as true today as it ever has been. "You can lay every economist end to end and they will still never reach a conclusion."
The final and simple verdict on all this is: politicians try to buy your votes with more and more expenditures funded by either taxation or borrowing. _And you, dear taxpayer, are the one who has to pay for all of it!_ If you can't figure this out then you are only along for the ride and will get to enjoy the crash when it all hits the wall at 100 mph.
Start looking for God because He is the only one who can save you when this all gets reduced to rubble. 🤷♂️
Who in their right mind would take financial advice from Robert Reich?
He is from the 3rd Reich.
College kids love him
Someone who possesses freedom from thought.
Libs.
@@darrellhunt4246 Right, & they'll stay kids after they graduate harassing & terrorizing non-conformists who won't give them nice things.
tax cuts for the rich by thomas sowell. a must read. and a short read too.
Why?
What if tax was a flat 10%? How about the government should run on that 10%. Taxes should only happen once. You should only be taxed when you buy a new product, if you buy a used product the tax has already been paid once. We are tired of all this taxation and giant government waste of our tax dollars.
flat taxes are regressive. A flat tax would give less buying power to the middle and lower income bracket, especially when you factor in cost of living expenses.
@@jameslay1489The lowest tax bracket ,is already 10%.
@@sebastianlucas704 which would really help the top 1% compared to the middle and lower income bracket. You still have the same problem.
@@jameslay1489How is that a problem? Not everything is going to effect everyone equally. The rich benefit more form some policies, and the poor benefit more from others.
@@sebastianlucas704 because it still creates inequality. Flat taxes are regressive, the only people who really want them implemented are the wealthy because they know they will benefit the most. Those that aren't wealthy and support it have been hoodwinked into believing it's a fair tax system. Under a flat tax system the buying power of the middle and lower income tax bracket would be significantly less.
We need Thomas Sowell as president. Ben Carson as vice president. Or, Ben Carson as president and Larry Elder as vice president. The far left like radical change. Well...This would be a sensible right wing radical change.
So true :D
The left like radical change as long as they don't get their welfare and gov't jobs taken away
No! Down vote for you! This has been addressed many times. TS is not interested in politics and for good reason. The social pressures of the campaigning would encourage him to compromise his morals which he does not want. We need men like TS in the civilian and academia realm. Plz folks stop saying these stupid comments.
Elder would be a better president than VP....
Thomas, you need to invite Jordan Peterson
idk that they have a ton of overlap
Maybe if they went the Schiepek/Hayes route of emergent stress effective response but that still deviates from Sowell's wheelhouse.
Great people, but I want Rogan to interview Sowell. I believe this will spread his name way faster.
No, no... It’s the regulation that allows unlawful practice. Sound economic laws need no regulation. Just enforcing.
Wow, I never realized over taxing doesn't work because people will just avoid paying it!
Pria, That's not exactly the case. Rich people have learned how to make and how to save money. Therefore they shelter and protect their assets by moving them into tax protected "commodities", etc. In other words they take advantage of government created tax incentives some call tax loopholes.
yes, and trickle down has never been a real thing. The flaw is that it inherently assumes that a) money given to above is somehow entitled to below, and b) money "given" is somehow owed/owned by someone else, all socialist/marxist beliefs in disguise. The reality is everyone, regardless of financial classification, will attempt to avoid government taking their money, so the more rules you create to steal money, the more hidden and stagnate the money becomes. when there is more freedom in the economic sector, people are more liberal and active with their wealth. thus, by increasing taxes, you quell activity, and by lowering taxes/regulations, you encourage activity. that's all. no trickle up, down, left, or right. it's applies equally across all financial classifications. less oppression, more activity and freedom. high taxes and regulations are just like quarantine lockdowns and masks of the social world, but then when the money is locked down they are actually dumb enough to ask "why is financial activity (economy) dropping?" one clearly follows the other. basic concept rooted in basic liberty which, of course, communists and socialists and leftists can't comprehend because they don't understand freedom and liberty.
I first heard of trickledown economics during the Reagan years. I assumed it came from the Reagan camp. Made sense that if an economy prospers it grows providing more jobs and with that more opportunity for people to start new businesses and so on. The trick is how to stimulate that growth.
The thing is, theoretically, regulations could make us safe. But they almost never do.
Expecting the New York Times to be right on realistic economics is like expecting the Chinese Communist Party to be right on human rights.
Trickle-down economics isn't a theory. It's a fact. It's just how it works.
I have told people for a long time trickle-up certainly isn't a thing I've never been given a job by a poor person Always by somebody that had a lot more money than I did and it trickled down into my pocket a little bit
true, but trickle down has never been a real thing. The flaw is that it inherently assumes that a) money given to above is somehow entitled to below, and b) money "given" is somehow owed/owned by someone else, all socialist/marxist beliefs in disguise. The reality is everyone, regardless of financial classification, will attempt to avoid government taking their money, so the more rules you create to steal money, the more hidden and stagnate the money becomes. when there is more freedom in the economic sector, people are more liberal and active with their wealth. thus, by increasing taxes, you quell activity, and by lowering taxes/regulations, you encourage activity. that's all. no trickle up, down, left, or right. it's applies equally across all financial classifications. less oppression, more activity and freedom. high taxes and regulations are just like quarantine lockdowns and masks of the social world, but then when the money is locked down they are actually dumb enough to ask "why is financial activity (economy) dropping?" one clearly follows the other. basic concept rooted in basic liberty which, of course, communists and socialists and leftists can't comprehend because they don't understand freedom and liberty.
I've preached for years, tax cuts ALWAYS produce more revenue. Simple😆
Things one needs to take to grave- Every Bee Gee/Elvis/70s Disco Album, Every 70s Godzilla action figure, every Six Million Dollar Man episode, anything written by Prof. Sowell.😎
2008 risky lending was due to banks being forced to lend to high risk minorities due to anti-discrimination lending laws.
@Lord Phontaroy - Absolutely not. Clinton himself (the first president to not experience the Great Depression & New Deal from then on) repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall act which opened the doors for financial cooperations (mostly lobbied by credit card banks) to gamble on the stock market freely again leading to a liquidity shortfall by risky overspending eventually bringing the web down when one of their financial conglomerates crashed
I doubt that....just wild lending, totally imprudent.......................
I always said that trickle down is how socialists try to explain how economy works, and they get an F for the effort.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Mr. Shark Tooth No no no no .. I want V, not D
щ(`Д´щ;)
If you can’t understand Thomas Sowell… Do not misrepresent him by saying he’s not trickle down!
Robert Reich is wrong about Everything ❕ Thomas Sowell is a Genius, a gentleman and a National Treasure. His writings should be taught in school.
"Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will. " Gustave de Molinari
dumbest quote ever
@@unclebounce1495 because the only way you know how to solve problems is using violence.
@@unclebounce1495No.
@@Lysander_Spooner Let me see how should I respond to such a deep reply. How about... Yes.
@@unclebounce1495 What makes it dumb?
Mr. Thomas Sowell should be a role model for everyone in America. Crazy that more people know of alshaprton than Thomas Sowell
This man is a national treasure.
The funny thing is that this is the exact same response the Nordic economies experienced. “Why is our economy stagnating? Do we need to raise taxes on income higher?” It turns out when you took away everyone’s income to build wealth, they don’t produce 😂 who would of known. Surely not the mainstream economist.
The difference is one position is based on emotion and the other is based on the more complex interaction of economic facts. "They have more money and should pay more so raise their taxes" is a very emotional and simplistic way to look at things. Also, is the goal to make the rich have less money, or is the goal to raise tax revenue? If you want the government to have more tax revenue to spend ( a dubious position ) then you want the rich to be using their money in the market transactionally so that those transactions can be taxed.
of course those with most pay more tax........but without loopholes or tax discounts...
@@jfarrell9915They still pay more collectively than we working class do collectively, *with* the loopholes and discounts.
Incidentally, those loopholes and discounts are *features* of the progressive tax system people like Reich favour.
Two words for you; Laffer Curve.
@@Si_Mondo i'm not anti laffer curve but it is over applied. ..............
closing usa tax loopholes and many more audits will yield hugely, particularly as usa citizens are taxed world wide.
Something I've learned from Thomas Sowell is that I now instantly distrust assertions made without exemplary evidence, especially when those assertions point to a single cause for societal issues. Robert Reichs statement about deregulation being directly causal to the outrageous healthcare costs & market crashes is a perfect example of such nonsense.
5:01 - And yet there was a significant recession & the Daw-Jones went down in the 1987 crush
When people are taxed less they try harder, people who try harder produce more. Wealth REDISTRIBUTES itself naturally when people are motivated.
This is why you tax everything but have taxes so low you need an electro microscope to see.
The seeds of the 2008 crisis weren't that banks were "allowed" to make risky bets. They were FORCED TO, by the government. Forced to lend on homes to people who had no business taking out a mortgage!
100 years from now they will reading Thomas Sowell and wondering why we didn't listen !
Hopefully, if his work hasn't been memory holed.
"The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea"
"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
- David Stockman, The Atlantic
trickle down economy?.........water will flow uphill first....................
Stockman criticised the cuts because they didn't cut the spending. The cuts to taxes were fine, as long as government spending was cut also. Though he was budget director (first term only, and not the whole term) all of his suggestions were ignored.
He's been on Tom Woods' podcast (a couple of years ago now) talking about that time.
Friendly reminder that Robert Reich is shorter than my garden gnome
Words of absolute truth.
Every salary or wage recipient is a beneficiary of the trickle-down effect.
A fun way to assess a controversial issue is to listen and genuinely try to understand the best arguments and counter arguments from both sides…the first side that resorts to misrepresenting, strawmanning, or accusing the other of bad intentions rather than honestly addressing their position, is in the wrong every single time.
Sounds obvious but most people seem incapable of doing it
Both are true. Argue on either side and sound smart if you like.
"Regulations" are no more good or bad than a wrench. They are good when they are the right tool for the job, but may be worse than useless otherwise.
I would like to see this debated.
Robert Reich is completely full of sht
'The term “trickle-down economics” was actually coined by Will Rogers, a humorist, journalist, and radio personality, in the 1920s to mock President Herbert Hoover’s policies during the Great Depression. Rogers used the term to sarcastically describe the idea that benefits to the wealthy would “trickle down” to the general population.'
"Trickle-down" is a calumny.
I'm partial to trickle up economics. I studied the budgets in tax cut years. Government spending went up EVERY year. There were never tax cuts, they were cuts in 'proposed' budgets.
The Biden-Harris administration has no legal right to cancel student loans. However, it wouldn't cost anything if they cut expenditures the same amount.
I have a student loan that I struggle to pay (until it vanished; my loan servicer now claims they've never heard of me). I didn't want it forgiven; I wanted the government to fix the job market so that I could afford to pay it! There are no full-time jobs available to me because of Obamacare.
Is that government at least encouraging people paying for an agenda?
"trickle down" was coined by will Roger's as an insult.
That in a book about him? Interesting.
Robert Reich is another intelligent leftist who is smart enough to rationalize and argue for stupid ideas.
I hear the argument on trickle down economics often that tax cuts cant ensure the business spend the money on business and cant ensure the money goes to the employee instead of the owner of the business because Money doesn't trickle down. There is another logical side to the argument that most people forget and that is that cost does trickle down and taxes are part of the cost of business.
If a business has a tax increase of 10% of their gross income that means a 10% loss of profit. 10% loss of profit cold mean the life or death of a small business and for a larger business it means reducing cost either by buying cheaper goods, reducing wage cost or higher prices usually all three.
People cant seem to understand that while 1 dollars an hour per employee doesnt seem like a lot of money if you have 2 million employees it is a total raise of 4,160,000,000 dollars per year
PROFIT is a relative term, its relative to the percentage left over revenue from the business' monthly expenses of earned revenue(utilities rent maintenance salaries benefits vendor fees ect)
Bruh, I stan Thomas Sowell.
Nothing "Trickles" Everything is earned
*sigh*, I hate to break it to you, Mr. Sowell; but facts are racist; so 'we' have to ignore everything you demonstrate so clearly.
It's true; logic is the tool of the white man to oppress others. Can't build an egalitarian socialist utopia atop things like 'rationalism' and 'empiricism'.
Sigh, indeed, Mr 2017. When used as an adjective 'racist' means "having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another" (according to Merriam-Webster). Can you clarify how can a 'fact' ('a thing that is indisputably the case' -- also according to M-W) be racist? Can facts have beliefs?
"I hate to break it to you, Mr. Sowell;but" but you're lying @P& 2017 == that's the main kicker here, you want to break a viewpoint you love to tear down for the thrill of making yourself look smart which is quite a failure.
This is so relevant now in UK. I'd love to know what Dr. Sowell thinks of the new UK Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's tax cuts and what actions are needed going forward in the UK
I am sorry. i dont get it and I try. But if supply side economics works, why is it so bad right now? Why are things so pricey and the elites so wealthy? Why can coorperations like amazon pay 0 taxes in 2020. I realy want to understand. Would someone be so kind as to explain it to me?
Trickle Down Economics is a scam...
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for us...
Because our current society is not capitalist but corporatist which is a form of socialism
@@wojtek9675More like the natural progression of capitalism
taxes cuts for everybody
They should tax everyone at 10%, then everyone would have skin in the game. It should be a constitutional amendment, then it’s can’t be raised and our leaders can move on to more important things.
That’s not how the world works John
@@Ajourneyofknowing
I know it would never work because it would never be done. They hold on to this division like they hold on to racism. They will never let it go.
@@Jmdwifi - Oh so your going on “we’ll you can’t disprove it’s existence” fallacy
@@Ajourneyofknowing
The existence of what? Feel like I missed something
AND if you are on welfare, you cannot vote for 12 months after you go off welfare. it is insanity to allow people who are bumming/leeching from the system to decide where the system allocates its money. that's like allowing an non-retired thief to design security for the bank. if you are contributing more than you're taking (net positive input), then you get a share/say in how the system functions an what it does with its wealth/power. if you're subsidized, you should get no share authority. universal suffrage was marxism for democracy, and that was the beginning of the fall of western society (slow but inevitable).
Over the past 40 years real wages have COMPLETELY failed to keep pace with gains in productivity growth. The vast majority of people depend on wages alone so this is a very real thing in the lives of most Americans. Gains have mostly gone to capital and capital owners. The gains have passed through the system, inflated assets, executive income and shareholder returns. Monetary policy does not target capital as clearly and directly as labor. Discussing tax rates rather than how factor shares are spilt in the economy is a smoke screen. Repeat real wages have not at all kept pace wth ... CAPITAL GAINS.
Reich is the shorter version of Krugman and regardless of height they’re both wrong.
The Political Checkmate has made videos showing this is the case
This guy would make a wonderful president!
But, why would anyone want more revenue for the government? Every penny that’s not given to police protection, court adjudication, and military protection- protecting private property, contracts and national borders- is diverted from the private, productive, trading economy.
Agreed, but that’s a separate argument. I think this argument shows the lunacy of progressives who want more tax revenue but will go against a proven method of increasing revenue by implementing tax hikes because of what it appears to do instead of what it actually does.
Because if it isn't taken as tax revenue, it'll be taken in inflation-related taxation, which is much worse. If you want to cut down those things, cutting spending is the only way.
it's about effeciency. once again, you're going into the zero-sum mindset. leftists always assume that for one side to gain, the other must lose. that's a zero sum. in truth, both can benefit/profit simultaneously. this is reality, but only if you have liberty and deregulation.
Barney Frank was part of the cause of the 2008 crisis because of he told regulators to not try reduce unsustainable loans. Another big factor was credit default swaps. Check it out.
yea...fairyland lending to bolster bonuses,criminal.............
@@jfarrell9915 I think I remember reading that Frank's boyfriend was getting big bonuses.
I suspect another motivation was to buy votes from people getting the loans that they could not repay.