Mankiw is brilliant because he came up with plausible explanations without touching the real issues such as corruption in politics, supply-side economics myths, the destruction of labor unions, oligopolistic pricing, and massive loopholes in the tax code that benefit capital gains or estate tax... To name a few. But I always like to hear both sides of the story. Excellent debate.
The more I listen to Bernstein, the more I love this guy. And I love that he is objective and realistic. Tax the wealthy is not the only answer to everything. There is no free lunch
Mankiw is mistaken when he states that the U.S. subsidizes the costs of the research that goes into drug making. Drug makers still have a lot left over when taking these costs into account. The sole reason why they're so expensive is because we don't have cost controls or the ability to import cheaper Canadian drugs.
+Sam Peak Edit: you flatly reject the fact that inventing a drug has a very high cost relative to the benefits of selling it *in a competitive market*. Regardless, you are incorrect in saying that copyright laws do not incentivize pharmaceutical research because again, regardless of the cost of research, the benefits of selling it when you have a monopoly are increased.
We also have an expensive and lengthy drug approval process through the FDA that prevents competitors from entering the market and lowering the prices of drugs. To some extent IP is necessary to incentivize production but it has the downside of granting a temporary monopoly, with all the problems that monopolies usually have.
+pabloar RENT Rent is income that is not based on productive contribution, like owning an apartment complex and renting it out. You aren't actually increasing the value of anything; it's a zero-sum game. Other examples are government jobs and theft. Rent-seeking, a related concept, is a negative-sum game wherein people consume resources to get rent--like two pirates fighting over a stolen treasure chest.
@@chrisagehman "Rent" is not real estate rental... or car rental. Real estate owners and car owners who rent must continually maintain their capital stock at a profit. As to how much profit, that's determined in a free market. Life is an auction, my friend- like it or not.
Jared Bernstein's arguments were tenuous at best. Anyone who knows much of anything about economics would find what he says either ridiculous or, at worst, deceitful.
Please be more specific... Because he is the one bringing data.... We have had an economy driven by the theory of supply side economics for decades... (Corporate tax cuts mainly)... The result is what we now see... Record inequality... A far cry from the trickle down prosperity hypothesized
Here's my practical solution to economic inequity: A few years ago, I heard of an interesting business proposal: A factory owner, who employed a great number of dedicated workers, decided to sell his factory to his trusty employees. - He told them that his investment value of his factory is $... and he would like to divide the sum into equal shares among his employees. - They held a meeting, in which they all agreed to become part owners of this factory. Instead weekly wages, they now receive a monthly profit share. Result: They now all work harder, are punctual and behave far more disciplined than before; as miserably paid wage-earners. This is certainly one way of creating a fair economic system, in which we all become self-employed. Maybe this was the original notion of a true “commonwealth”, which was never practically applied? Yet, if we consider the human right to benefit from all human talents, the question arises: why should only capitalistically minded people benefit from it? - All gifted people should be encouraged to apply their talents to the benefit of society. Since not all of us inherited the talent of “creating a business” the talents of entrepreneurs should be no exception! They too, should be encouraged to apply their talent to the benefit of society. Of course efforts of all talents are rewarded. Let us take another practical example on how to go about: For instance an entrepreneur successfully establishes an automobile repair workshop and employs a dozen of mechanics, sales/ administration personal and then sells his business to his employees. Result: all will benefit from this deal! The entrepreneur receives his investment back with the added capital gain, which enables him to launch another business adventure. The talented workers, who now own and secured their share in the huge manufacturing business, are rewarded with a fair profit shares. This type of capitalism does away with worker’s union and strikes, for their battle shifts to competing with the free market: i.e. they need to consistent maintain a competitive edge of their products to satisfy consumer demands. It will be only then that the former employee's unique abilities and talents gain a realistic incentive to improve their profit margins.
In your 3 books it's "socialism" or even "communism"... yet, in my book it's "an amended, sustainable form of capitalism", because it turns workers into owners of capital; into capitalists! - Mind you, not all workers might then become owners, but my idea offers the great majority of workers the opportunity to actively participate in capitalism. Most workers lack the talent and means to create a business. That's why we need experts in this field: an entrepreneur, who knows to calculate the risks and thus able to established a viable business. The truth is: the pure form of capitalism (which now got us into trouble...) is unsustainable in the long run, because it's designed to exploit and deceive workers, whereas the mixture of socialism and capitalism is a sustainable form. Thus, Sweden's capitalist ideology seems to be on the right track and it still allows the rich getting richer, yet at the same time enables the "less rich" to pay their bills. Remember: The wealth of a country is not measured by the amount of possessions held by a minority, but rather by the amount of possessions held by the greater majority of its citizens. Hence, the biggest problem we now face is to get sordid capitalists/ materialists to amend a sustainable form of capitalism. Their mentality of exploiting and defrauding workers requires psychological reformation...and I am afraid that task is an even bigger problem, because they all have grown too long, pointed noses and too long fingers... Maybe surgical intervention is the solution?
+Joh Drinda Human nature is complex and even I myself can be lazy, lie, deceitful and so on from time to time unless I keep training myself to be highly disciplined and to have high standard of attitude and character. You are assuming people will work harder, punctual and behave better - do not lie or selfish. As a business owner, if I sell some of my share towards few of my staff, and somewhere along the way they become extremely messed up - lazy, liar, trying to take over the other shares, share and market manipulation, etc, I would be sentencing myself and many of my staff to a certain death and jeopardize the life of my other employees, investors, etc. Are you assuming that workers cannot create company because they have no talent or dedication or education or degree or rich father or government help (and more excuses)? So, what is the benefits for the company founders, eg. Mark Z or Jack Ma who had worked hard and bet their skills and small capital? Have you accounted the possibility of crisis or business failure? Did they receive help from their rich family or government or university degree? Didn't Jack Ma start his alibaba.com from middle to poor class? Are you assuming that lower level staff cannot deceive the managers or bosses? Here is a great idea based on your system. Why don't you create a company, hopefully a big company with all your skills and savings, and then I work for you, and after 5 years of loyalty, give me free shares and I promise you that I will work very hard, punctual and behave better. :D
Mankiw’s influence on policy, the Bush II era, produced period of increasing inequality. Rather than ask him for expertise, you should quiz him as a witness.
Mankiw is brilliant because he came up with plausible explanations without touching the real issues such as corruption in politics, supply-side economics myths, the destruction of labor unions, oligopolistic pricing, and massive loopholes in the tax code that benefit capital gains or estate tax... To name a few. But I always like to hear both sides of the story. Excellent debate.
The more I listen to Bernstein, the more I love this guy. And I love that he is objective and realistic. Tax the wealthy is not the only answer to everything. There is no free lunch
I thought this was a good debate. Much better than watching politicians debate income inequality
Mankiw is mistaken when he states that the U.S. subsidizes the costs of the research that goes into drug making. Drug makers still have a lot left over when taking these costs into account. The sole reason why they're so expensive is because we don't have cost controls or the ability to import cheaper Canadian drugs.
+Sam Peak Edit: you flatly reject the fact that inventing a drug has a very high cost relative to the benefits of selling it *in a competitive market*. Regardless, you are incorrect in saying that copyright laws do not incentivize pharmaceutical research because again, regardless of the cost of research, the benefits of selling it when you have a monopoly are increased.
We also have an expensive and lengthy drug approval process through the FDA that prevents competitors from entering the market and lowering the prices of drugs. To some extent IP is necessary to incentivize production but it has the downside of granting a temporary monopoly, with all the problems that monopolies usually have.
31:14 "what economists call ????" i dont undertand this word, can somebody help?
+pabloar RENT
Rent is income that is not based on productive contribution, like owning an apartment complex and renting it out. You aren't actually increasing the value of anything; it's a zero-sum game. Other examples are government jobs and theft. Rent-seeking, a related concept, is a negative-sum game wherein people consume resources to get rent--like two pirates fighting over a stolen treasure chest.
+Chris Gehman thanks Chris. I thought I heard rent, but since I'm not an English speaker I was in doubt. I know what rent seeking is. Thanks!!!
@@chrisagehman "Rent" is not real estate rental... or car rental. Real estate owners and car owners who rent must continually maintain their capital stock at a profit. As to how much profit, that's determined in a free market. Life is an auction, my friend- like it or not.
net immigration from mexico is close to CERO.
should be negative
4:47 turnup !!!
economics will be finished within this week.
Jared Bernstein's arguments were tenuous at best. Anyone who knows much of anything about economics would find what he says either ridiculous or, at worst, deceitful.
Can you be a bit more specific?
Please be more specific... Because he is the one bringing data.... We have had an economy driven by the theory of supply side economics for decades... (Corporate tax cuts mainly)... The result is what we now see... Record inequality... A far cry from the trickle down prosperity hypothesized
Here's my practical solution to economic inequity:
A few years ago, I heard of an interesting business proposal: A factory owner, who employed a great number of dedicated workers, decided to sell his factory to his trusty employees. - He told them that his investment value of his factory is $... and he would like to divide the sum into equal shares among his employees. - They held a meeting, in which they all agreed to become part owners of this factory. Instead weekly wages, they now receive a monthly profit share. Result: They now all work harder, are punctual and behave far more disciplined than before; as miserably paid wage-earners.
This is certainly one way of creating a fair economic system, in which we all become self-employed.
Maybe this was the original notion of a true “commonwealth”, which was never practically applied?
Yet, if we consider the human right to benefit from all human talents, the question arises: why should only capitalistically minded people benefit from it? - All gifted people should be encouraged to apply their talents to the benefit of society. Since not all of us inherited the talent of “creating a business” the talents of entrepreneurs should be no exception! They too, should be encouraged to apply their talent to the benefit of society. Of course efforts of all talents are rewarded.
Let us take another practical example on how to go about:
For instance an entrepreneur successfully establishes an automobile repair workshop and employs a dozen of mechanics, sales/ administration personal and then sells his business to his employees. Result: all will benefit from this deal! The entrepreneur receives his investment back with the added capital gain, which enables him to launch another business adventure.
The talented workers, who now own and secured their share in the huge manufacturing business, are rewarded with a fair profit shares. This type of capitalism does away with worker’s union and strikes, for their battle shifts to competing with the free market: i.e. they need to consistent maintain a competitive edge of their products to satisfy consumer demands. It will be only then that the former employee's unique abilities and talents gain a realistic incentive to improve their profit margins.
A system in which workers own the means of production.......that's called socialism.
A system in which workers own the means of production.......that's called socialism.
A system in which workers own the means of production.......that's called socialism.
In your 3 books it's "socialism" or even "communism"... yet, in my book it's "an amended, sustainable form of capitalism", because it turns workers into owners of capital; into capitalists! - Mind you, not all workers might then become owners, but my idea offers the great majority of workers the opportunity to actively participate in capitalism.
Most workers lack the talent and means to create a business. That's why we need experts in this field: an entrepreneur, who knows to calculate the risks and thus able to established a viable business.
The truth is: the pure form of capitalism (which now got us into trouble...) is unsustainable in the long run, because it's designed to exploit and deceive workers, whereas the mixture of socialism and capitalism is a sustainable form.
Thus, Sweden's capitalist ideology seems to be on the right track and it still allows the rich getting richer, yet at the same time enables the "less rich" to pay their bills.
Remember: The wealth of a country is not measured by the amount of possessions held by a minority, but rather by the amount of possessions held by the greater majority of its citizens.
Hence, the biggest problem we now face is to get sordid capitalists/ materialists to amend a sustainable form of capitalism. Their mentality of exploiting and defrauding workers requires psychological reformation...and I am afraid that task is an even bigger problem, because they all have grown too long, pointed noses and too long fingers... Maybe surgical intervention is the solution?
+Joh Drinda Human nature is complex and even I myself can be lazy, lie, deceitful and so on from time to time unless I keep training myself to be highly disciplined and to have high standard of attitude and character. You are assuming people will work harder, punctual and behave better - do not lie or selfish.
As a business owner, if I sell some of my share towards few of my staff, and somewhere along the way they become extremely messed up - lazy, liar, trying to take over the other shares, share and market manipulation, etc, I would be sentencing myself and many of my staff to a certain death and jeopardize the life of my other employees, investors, etc.
Are you assuming that workers cannot create company because they have no talent or dedication or education or degree or rich father or government help (and more excuses)?
So, what is the benefits for the company founders, eg. Mark Z or Jack Ma who had worked hard and bet their skills and small capital? Have you accounted the possibility of crisis or business failure?
Did they receive help from their rich family or government or university degree? Didn't Jack Ma start his alibaba.com from middle to poor class?
Are you assuming that lower level staff cannot deceive the managers or bosses?
Here is a great idea based on your system.
Why don't you create a company, hopefully a big company with all your skills and savings, and then I work for you, and after 5 years of loyalty, give me free shares and I promise you that I will work very hard, punctual and behave better. :D
Mankiw’s influence on policy, the Bush II era, produced period of increasing inequality. Rather than ask him for expertise, you should quiz him as a witness.
What a load of apologist nonsense. I'm off to Mises Media.
the solution is bitcoin
I'd prefer commodity based money, but bitcoin certainly is the best fiat medium of exchange
Solution is nomopole of Dollar 💵