Does Capitalism Help or Harm Women? A Debate

Featuring Veronique de Rugy, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and Nicole Aschoff, Editorial Board, Jacobin; moderated by Chelsea Follett, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute.
Has the spread of capitalism been a net positive or a net negative for women around the world? Is capitalism an inherently exploitative, oppressive, and patriarchal economic system entwined with the subjugation of women? Or has it helped to empower women, enhancing their material well-being and fostering gender parity? Advocates of women’s welfare disagree on these important questions. As a result, they seek to advance very different economic policies despite a shared goal of promoting female empowerment.
We invite you to a debate about the rise of global capitalism and its effect on women. Two scholars - a free marketer and an anti-capitalist - will go head-to-head to answer an important question: Does capitalism help or harm women?
Learn more: www.cato.org/e...
Want to find the Cato Institute elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / catoinstitute
Twitter - / catoinstitute
Instagram - / catoinstitute
-

[@hermanjones8001]

On the "Women in the workplace" thing: Ladies, why would you want to join men in their workplace misery?

[@Vnm2207]

Omg I am commenting as I watch but the argument that we need to look at capitalism not as a model but as what is concretely, in reality is HILARIOUS coming from socialist who are constantly defending socialism by pointing out to the perfect model it seems to be in paper while doing all types of gymnastics to avoid looking at the reality of socialist regimes 😂

[@jonathanwieler8863]

"We're not in a recession, though there is always tomorrow..."

[@neilstone3730]

I could agree with Rugy but Disney owns almost everything so she’s wrong

[@neilstone3730]

Interesting question and in my opinion it is a bit more nuanced. What kind of capitalism, who is proposing it, and more importantly for what reason? In my opinion it would benefit looking at history and statistics

[@ih82r8]

I would love to see an end to crony capitalism, restoring faith in the separation of the government and big business, and an end to stupid bailouts for example.

[@anonkasper7937]

Chrony capitalism is nothing but Marxist communism in another form.capitalism is only thing that will work by creating meritocracy.Marxism and democracy are two great enemys.Marxism will never work without dictatorship.What we need is to focus on is developing individual to optimum level rather than talking useless things like class,gender,race that can be done only by using meritocracy.Now we are able to sue big companies because of the meritocratic benifits democracy and neo capitalism.In communist Marxist state such voices will be crushed and sent to the gulag🤣🤣😹

[@transon6655]

Saudia Arabia is a free country ???? it is put in the almost unfree category from the Index of Economic Freedom. Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[@janettejack7721]

It's more of a Western world vs developing world debate.

[@thoughtfox12]

It's really telling when the KZbin algorithm has to forcefeed me pseudo conservative psy-ops that organically get next to zero views to try and deter me from watching anything actually challenging to the status quo

[@matasuki]

51:00. Libertarian capitalism usually dissolves into cronyism as those with capital are able to bribe their way. The problem with capitalism is fiat money. The lack of hard money corrupts the entire system and creates a slew of bad policies.

[@nthperson]

Ms. de Rugy is correct to call for an increase in the supply of affordable housing. However, constructing decent, affordable housing is not a real issue. The real issue is the cost of land. And, the reason land costs are as high as they are where people want to live is the under-taxation of land. The economics are as follows. Every parcel or tract of land has some potential annual rental value. The difference between this potential rental value and the annual tax impost produces an imputed (and often an actual) unearned rental income stream capitalized by market forces into a selling price for the land. When demand is high land markets are driven not by current rental values but by expected future rental values. Access to low cost credit adds fuel to the speculation-driven character of land markets. Now, a 100 percent annual tax on land's rental value would eliminate the income stream to land ownership. The selling price of land would fall (theoretically close to zero but certainly to levels where housing can be constructed to be affordable to the overwhelming majority of households.

[@nthperson]

@Ronald Reagan Here's the rub. Housing (and land) is most affordable where employment opportunities are scarce. For quality of life reasons, many people left the cities for the suburbs. Cities have made a come back but sprawl has continued. So, now housing in the suburbs is too expensive for many and they move to what are still rural communities and commute 1-2 hours each way to work every day. Moving to a land value only property tax deals with all of these issues in a very positive way.

[@nthperson]

@Ronald Reagan Those of us who own real estate have a strong interest in the status quo, but only up to a point. What about the next generation of adults and the level of debt they are carrying in order to acquire a residential property. Those who have lower incomes (or no parents to gift them) are having trouble just affording an apartment. This is market failure. Bringing down land prices by imposing higher taxes on land holdings is a whole lot better than having another huge market collapse, millions of people losing employment, then losing homes after falling behind on mortgage loans and being evicted.

[@nthperson]

@Ronald Reagan Two final points you might consider. First, none other than Milton Friedman at a conference years ago that the most appropriate form of taxation was the taxation of the value of vacant land as proposed by Henry George. The video of his statement is available on KZbin. Second, economists at the Cato Institute have endorsed the taxation of land values.

[@wy7128]

lol. i am SO eager to watch the end result of this great experiment.

[@wy7128]

wow one of the presentation slides is basically hoodwinking the audience. what a STROKE of dissimulation !!!! fool most people but not me

[@Lycaon1765]

I think it has been a net gain, imo. I think it will lead to better gains later.

[@suzukidriver6473]

Healthcare is not a right, but a privilege. This would mean that a person is entitled to the labor or the (fruits of) an individual which would violate individual rights to self-ownership.

[@ih82r8]

Shouldn't there be some kind of option for people of all wages to purchase the product of healthcare? I may not be able to afford a Maserati, so no, it's not a "right" for me to be able to purchase it, but I can afford a Hyundai or a Ford. Name brand clothing vs bargain brand clothing as another example. If we view the fruits of labor as a product, then there seems to be no option for lower cost healthcare and it's monopolized in our society (unless people are trying to go out of the country, which is not a feasible or realistic option for a nation to have). For instance, if only millionaires can afford to pay a doctor to perform heart surgery in San Francisco, anyone who isn't a millionaire in San Francisco is effectively given a death sentence because there is no surgery option they will be able to afford. So rather than allow for people to run a debt and then declare bankruptcy which harms the hospital's business, the doctor's supplied product going unpaid, etc. shouldn't there be some option for ALL levels of income so that rather than it being seen as a right and a free ride for people, you will have to pay something, but it would be proportionate to your income and cost of living/location? (And I don't consider the ACA to do this, as it 100% subsidizes some people while lumping together others---regardless of the market and cost of living city they live in---into the category of having to pay for themselves and the subsidized individuals.)

[@DrewminatiVideos]

@@ih82r8 I think the problem you will run into with different healthcare packages, is that the most talented care providers will go to the most high paying employers, which will be the ones that cost the most. Healthcare is incentivized by occupation in the US. COVID has increased the pay even more. I think it would be inevitable to see subpar healthcare programs be developed in this scenario, much like many government services vs private today.

[@Marine_Ret]

Who made the sandwiches for this estrogen party?

[@Vnm2207]

Not a misogynistic loser like you who certainly doesn’t even know how to cook to save himself 😂