Antony Davies DEBUNKS 7 Robert Reich LIES

[@LearnLiberty]

Don’t forget: You can see Antony talk in person! Register for LibertyCon International right here: www.libertycon.com/

[@jimmaag4274]

Robert Reich is the ultimate contrarian indicator, there is nothing he can't be completely wrong about.

[@FastlaneProductions1]

My favorite brand of content: dunking on Robert Reich

[@a2rgaming863]

It's a fun hobby.

[@TheWizardGamez]

hell yeah

[@01nmuskier]

That's a 4'5" dunk. 😂

[@FastlaneProductions1]

@@01nmuskier bruh I did not realize how short he was until this video that is nuts

[@Motle009]

@@FastlaneProductions1 same here. I knew he was short but this video made me realize how short he really is and was shocked

[@vincentrockel1149]

The problem with his analysis is that it assumes politicians do things in the best interests of their nations, and history shows that to be false.

[@ArtSmosh1274]

It depends

[@akwit82]

Politicians for the most part listen and pander to voters. After all not losing their job is most politicians priority. Sometimes what the voters want isn't in the nations best interest or the moral option. But greedy politicians listen to voters anyways for fear of losing their jobs.

[@akwit82]

Where did he say that politicians do things in the nations best interest?

[@jdrive03]

@@akwit82Yes and no. Many politicians play a game, and it's called the balancing act. The system is set up to where they need to raise funds, so they need campaign donations and big endorsements, but also they will need to have some populace stances on key issues to gain popularity and support. Depending on where they live and run for office, that will dictate which issues they will take a stance on or not. Some enter will a vision and a goal, deeply care about issues, and want to enact change - but if you've ever seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it's an old movie, but it touches on this effect... well intentioned, inspired, charismatic, and virtuous young politicians start out wanting to create a positive impact, only to get to Washington and realize they've entered into a game that they know nothing about, and eventually, the House wins - you're playing a losing game. So, they go in with their optimism and ideologies, and realize what they're up against, and so the corruption is the means to their ends, and most of them are corruptible. The ones that aren't, they maintain their base for a time, but they don't move the needle because they lay on the fringe or the extreme and aren't able to pass many bills or gain enough support among their colleagues. Politicians begin to play a game where they convince the voters that they are fighting for A and B, and C issues, but in reality behind the scenes they are supporting D, E, and F when you're not paying attention. A lot of times, they don't need to please the voters, they just have to be the better option than the other politician, so you go on the offensive and bash the other side constantly. Get the voters to take their eye off the ball, and deflect/keep the focus on how bad the other guys are. This is why people always say that a large number of voters often vote against their own interests, is because they are fooled into believing that certain politicians are "fighting" for their rights, or for them... but in reality, it's all a game. They are often bought and paid for by elites and special interest donors that have a stake in a direction or agenda, and if you have enough money, you can flood the media with propaganda and convince voters you are doing one thing and not the other. So, yes, they don't want to lose their job, but also they need to raise funds. They are often in a catch 22, and so they do a balancing act to stay in power, and eventually become corrupt. That's how you get career politicians like Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi, how you get the Joe Biden's, the Chuck Schumer's, the Lindsey Graham's and the Diane Feinstein's... they act like they represent their constituents all the while they're enriching themselves with insider trading scams, side deals, and bribes. Sure, we can cut off a few heads of the hydra, but one will just grow back and take their place. And that's the best we can do, is fire them, and hope someone else will uphold the Constitution and either vote down bad bills, and vote up good ones.

[@MarushiaDark316]

One of my favorite economists taking down one of my least favorite economists. Keep it up, professor.

[@LearnLiberty]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

[@1dullgeek]

Robert Reich seems a politician who cosplays as an economist. Airlines are another example of cronyism. The deregulation under Reagan was not to zero. The FAA still plays a massive role in the aviation industry, making it so that the cost of compliance makes it very difficult for new entries to arise. Exactly what you said: reduction in the number of airlines appears to be at least partly because government regulation makes new firms difficult, if not impossible to arise. Take a look at what it takes to get Part 121 certification (the rules regarding scheduled flights for sale). Take a look at the pilot licensing requirements. Even a commercial pilot can't offer services in their own airplane without first getting either a Part 121 operators certificate or a Part 135 operators certificate (required for unscheduled chartered flights). It's insanely expensive, time consuming, and requires an army of lawyers to confirm compliance. And even then it's still subject to the whims of the regulators. This is why there will never be an Uber for aviation. Despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of small airplanes sitting idle most of the time.

[@damnguyen2721]

The fact that there is no Uber in airline make it the safest type of transportation so yeah the cost is justified

[@1dullgeek]

@damnguyen2721 that's your opinion but you have taken away the freedom of others to choose who don't share that opinion.

[@JohnDorian-j7x]

I mean... you could probably pick a better example... just saying, lol. This one ain't gonna rouse up any excess support

[@1dullgeek]

@@JohnDorian-j7x sure but the point is that the "deregulated" airlines aren't fully deregulated as the video suggests. Also fwiw it is legal in its entirety to fly any passengers for any reason. What's illegal is getting paid to fly them. Safety is not the reason the rules exist.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

​@@1dullgeekas a monarchist, I don't care about your freedom

[@beefsupreme4671]

It only takes a high school level Econ class to debunk Reich

[@macsnafu]

More monopolies created by government are as close as your utility bills. Nobody ever talks about those monopolies.

[@jdrive03]

Although, it makes sense for a utility company to be a monopoly... I was imagining how complicated it would be having 5-10 utility companies in the same area, all fighting over the same power grids and space, the infrastructure, and which one is allowed to work in different areas. It would be a mess, and each company would still have to lobby the government to get contracts just like construction companies do. Power line falls, breaks, which company goes to fix it? Power infrastructure is largely owned by the government in most cases, so naturally, it becomes a monopoly. When you move into a neighborhood, it's kind of nice knowing it'll be consistent, you'll have power and gas from the same place and it'll be the same company... however, then there's the problem of, will they price gouge on behalf of the government? Is it a hidden tax? I don't know what the right answer would be, I did think about this, though, and I think it is that way because of how messy things would be if there were multiple power companies competing in the same area.

[@macsnafu]

@@jdrive03 Sure, it seems reasonable and simplifies things to have monopoly utilities. And states usually have regulatory commissions or boards that control the utility's actions and prices. But that doesn't really resolve the problems of monopoly. The regulations either allow the utilities to charge too much, or worse, not charge enough for maintenance and upgrades, creating other unintended problems. And the lack of competition tends to stifle innovation until it's forced on them through external forces and pressure. An obvious solution to the problem is for competing utilities to share the utility infrastracture in some way, so that it isn't necessary to build excessive and unneeded infrastructure. This is, in fact, what the early telephone companies were starting to do before Bell Telephone successfully argued in courts that phone service was a "natural" monopoly. Entrepreneurs are important for developing new and innovative ideas to problems that most of us could never figure out or resolve on our own. Even today, the "backbone" of the electrical grid is used by multiple electric companies, even though they have a monopoly in their particular regions. Small cell phone companies have agreements to use larger cell phone companies' networks for their service. The justification for government intervention and monopolization is too often assumed and not adequately argued.

[@jdrive03]

@ I don't know why you reply isn't showing after my comment, but yes, I agree. Even though it would be sort of complicated at first, just like cellphone service providers can all share the same towers, I think the most important thing is for consumers to have a choice. Here in CA, if PG&E is the only game in town, they have no incentive to improve services because the government contracts them and there is no competition, so they will not have to find ways to be better than someone else who will compete. If the individual consumer of energy, gas, and electricity was the one who chose which company they wanted, like cellphone service, instead of the government - then we would quickly find out who the best 5 companies were, and when they all compete, they all improve and run at near top efficiency. Remove government, aside from safety regulations and such, and things would be better, response times would be faster. The only thing that I think that would get harry is... if something goes wrong, power line goes down, who fixes it? When it causes a fire, who's fault is it? When things are great, everyone will take credit for it, when shit hits the fan, everyone will point fingers. When something goes wrong and it's PG&E's fault, that's easy, it's their responsibility to maintain the power grid, electrical, etc. if there were 5-8 companies in each area, or state, there's a lot less accountability, and it s harder to pin point fault. Overall, I do not like monopolies, at all. So we agree, I just don't know what the utility situation really looks like if it truly had free market competition.

[@macsnafu]

@@jdrive03 Well, my reply to your comment disappeared. I'll try again. Government regulation of a monopoly doesn't solve the problems of monopoly. The regulatory boards or commissions either let the utilities charge too much, or worse, not charge enough to cover maintenance and updates to their systems, which leads to other problems down the road. The monopoly also hinders innovation in the industry, innovation which could lead to better or entirely different utility delivery systems, and thus deny the consumers a better system. AT&T was a monopoly for decades, and they didn't get into the cellular phone service until it was obvious that everyone was switching to cell phones. They certainly weren't pushing hard for cell phone development. People think markets are *just* competitive, and don't realize how much cooperation happens between businesses. Most businesses only "fight" in very limited ways, and only where they have to. It's much more profitable to cooperate with other businesses than fight with them. In a competitive marketplace, utilities would make contractual agreements to share utility infrastructure, so that you don't need a dozen different wires for a dozen electrical companies. Even today, the "backbone" of the electrical grid is shared by several electrical companies to transport electricity to different parts of the country, even though those companies have a monopoly in a particular area or region. Early landline phone companies were busy working out arrangements to share phone lines when the government stepped in and claimed that phone service was a "natural" monopoly. Thus, nipping that competitive marketplace in the bud and leading to the AT&T monopoly. As another example, smaller cell phone companies are only able to operate because they have an agreement with one of the major companies to use their cellular network. Otherwise the smaller company would have to build their own network in order to operate.

[@macsnafu]

​@@jdrive03 I've tried three times now to provide a response with explanations, but it keeps getting deleted. Here's my more concise response and maybe KZbin will allow me to better explain later. Government regulation of monopolies doesn't solve the problems monopolies create, like the problems of pricing, maintenance and investment for future development, or lack of innovation. Businesses are capable of making agreements to share infrastructure so that unnecessary duplication doesn't need to exist. In my longer reply, I provided historical and contemporary examples of this.

[@strykert2007]

Robert Reich is an absolute clown.

[@answerman9933]

Robert Reich is not an economist.

[@1Skeptik1]

CEOs? Most CEOs are small businessmen who clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors before going home Saturday night. I've been there and done that, and I wore all the hats. I am 73 years old and own a few rental investments. I am a part-time businessman even now, my properties need maintenance and management.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

Someone is playing a game of schematics, it is understood when talking about CEOs, he is talking about the leader of big corporations and not some small company.

[@gerryparker7699]

So you saying that CEOs are small businessmen? Wow, do they really need to give themselves a name like CEO to make themselves sound important? Bit sad really.

[@lancewalker6067]

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613schematics or semantics?

[@marcusmoonstein242]

I'm a small landlord with a couple of dozen units, and since my business is a registered company I'm technically the CEO. But it sure doesn't feel like that when I'm emptying my tenants trash on Christmas Eve because my staff are all on holiday. As Anthony points out in the video, most CEO's are regular business owners who don't earn anywhere near what the CEO's of major companies earn.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

@@gerryparker7699 If your business is registered as a company and you run it, then technically you are the CEO no matter how small the business is.

[@benjaminlehman3221]

20:21 in his defense the government has giving money to bail out airlines. I personally think we should let them go bankrupt. If a company fails, the government should not help

[@BlackLibertarian]

@benjaminlehman3221 especially using taxpayer money to bail them out with.

[@zroth3734]

What if the failure is due to government distortion of market?

[@timothyrday1390]

It just goes to show that an industry such as the airlines is already quasi-public, and there lies the crux of many problems in America. Nothing is just straight up public or private, but always a mix of the two.

[@Zetirix]

I don't know, I'm in favor of that approach on paper, but watching all the banks go down at the same time would be... chaotic, to say the least.

[@BlackLibertarian]

@ The point is that if banks were told that no one will bail them out when they do stupid things, then guess what? THEY WON'T DO STUPID THINGS!! The only reason why they do it is because the government has, IN ADVANCE, given them a blank check! So don't worry. You won't watch all the banks go down at the same time.

[@jnorris0712]

Antony Davies + Dunking on RR = autolike

[@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky]

If you like RR getting dunk you should checkout The Political Checkmate

[@jnorris0712]

@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky ok PC, you get one chance: what's the video you've made that you would want me to see to determine if I subscribe?

[@jnorris0712]

@@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky ok, you get one chance to impress: link a video that would compel me to like/sub to you.

[@shigototravaillez9972]

Autolike = no critical thought involved

[@jnorris0712]

@@shigototravaillez9972 Reich's content is consistently bad enough and Antony's is consistently good enough to merit a thumbs up, regardless of content. Even if I (gasp) disagree.

[@daniellassander]

Robert Reich dont understand incentives. He constantly blames greed, well lets say me and two of my friends we own every single gas station in the country and we decide because we are greedy to raise the price of gas together, soon its at $6 a gallon, but im more greedy then my friends are so i drop the price of gas to $5 a gallon, i will make less money per gallon i sell but on the other hand every person will now fill up their car with my gas. As it turns out me and my two friends compete against each other for customers and we can do so in two ways, price and the quality of the product we sell, so we have to sell the gas as cheap as we can.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

So is greed now virtue? Second, you know the cheaper option is joining forces and becoming a monopoly and you remove the competition. Liberals are ignorant on economics because they treat the economy as a God I stead just a tool that is to support humanity.

[@chaweb1234]

Normies run the world, Antony Davis is not a normie

[@LearnLiberty]

He is the best!

[@nathaniel5261]

Reich is in fact richer than the average ceo, and part of the 1%, as Praxben pointed out

[@Pyrok007]

Ty for doing this. Reich annoys the hell out of me. He is a rich millionaire telling people to tax the rich, dude put your money where your mouth is.

[@Charles-xd6lw]

Reisch is a person that has never owned or operated or managed a business.

[@minionsystems]

The root of the problem is not monopolies but government's ability to treat some people/groups differently than others. Soime examples of unequal treatment are: industry subsidies, foreign aid, narrow laws that only affect certain groups, unequal benefits in health care, government education (a real monopoly), unequal taxation, unequal welfare benefits, government officials being treated in special ways e.g. setting their own salaries and other special protections like secret service, forced union memberships, unequal crime punishment including plea deals. This government discrimination is a violation of the 14th amendment "equal protection" and it provides the incentive for corrupt bribes and vote buying (loan forgiveness, FDIC coverage beyone $250k for some and not others). There is an easy fix for government corruption: have the courts enforce equal protection under the law and throw out discriminatory laws.

[@peggychristensen419]

Well said. The implementation of actual equal protection and equal rights under the law would eliminate most of government.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

1) as always, there are gross people liberals like yourself attacking unions. 2) it is okay for the government to treat people differently as someone who is doctor has a more credibility than some person claiming to be a doctor.

[@minionsystems]

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 1) Unions are associations under the 1st amendment and anyone wishing to join one should be able to. However, it is not up to government to get involved in those associations. If unions can attempt to create a labor monopoly, employers should be able to collaborate as well (equal protection) and the government should have no right to force people into those associations and force them to pay dues. This is especially true when those union dues primarily go to contributions to one political party that the individual members do not necessarily support. 2) Any government that treats some citizens or groups differently than others is not fair or honest. It gives the politicians and bureaucrats power to give favors to some at other's expense. It's worth a lot of bribes and votes from the favored. Democracy only works if the majority cannot opress the minority. Like it or not, the 1% is a very small minority. Do you think it's ok to give loan forgivness to some students and not other people's loans? Is it OK to tax some people differently than others? Is it OK to give some industries subsidies at taxpayer expense? Is it OK for some criminals to get plea deals and not others? Is it OK to give some races or genders special treatment (stupid hate laws that assume government can read minds)? Is it OK for government to force people to get poorly tested vaccines? Whether you are a doctor or a plumber, you should have the same rights and responsibilities under the force of government as everyone else - no special favors for anyone - it just leads to corruption.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@minionsystems 1) why should the government not be involved? Why should I care about your opinion on unions? Second, monopolies are natural because unity is more energy efficient. People's tax money goes to things people do not want like wars, car centric cities, bailing out banks, etc. 2) Do I believe in loan forgiveness for students and not for others, the answer is yes, I am not liberal, I don't agree with equality. I reject the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers who were anti- Catholic and anti-monarchist. 3) the concept of race came out liberalism who treat the blacks like trash to begin with, so their extra special treatment is a form of reparations. 4) the gender nonsense of giving special privileges came out of your liberal leftist camp. 5) my solution is to return back Catholic monarchy because everyone is subject to a king and papacy. 6) the corruption is comes directly comes from forced equality that you promote instead of accepting there are people who are meant to rule and giving extra special privileges but also with those special privileges comes with responsibilities.

[@minionsystems]

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 You don't have to care about my opinions as I don't have to care about your's. Free speech is just that, free - you don't have to listen. I'm just giving voice to the fundamental problem with government at causes corruption - their unconstitutional ability to treat the ones that support them over others. People complain about corporations and the wealthy buying favors from the government. Well, you can't buy what's not for sale. What's for sale is government corruption. The corporations and the wealthy are just doing what makes sense when dealing with a corrupt government since they are such a small group and don't have the power to vote against injustice. Of course people will vote to turn some people into slaves to get free stuff. We are still paying dearly for FDR's socialist ponzi schemes - Social security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs are ponzi schemes that allowed them to get started and the music is now stopping and there are not enough chairs. I am for free markets and small government. If you think my positions are leftist, you are VERY confused about politics.

[@nco_gets_it]

countries DO NOT "trade". People do. A farmer in Bolivia grows coffee. He sells it to Folgers. There was no "trade" between Bolivia and the US. When I bought a Honda, there was no "trade" between Japan and USA involved. Just me exercising my preference for quality and "trading" my money for a car.

[@UnorthodoxKnox]

Countries do trade. You want an embargo on Honda from Japan? where's your preference to Honda's supply now? lol.

[@KirilDimitrov86]

@@UnorthodoxKnoxYour comment is devoid of coherency. That's like saying a bridge trades because they allow cars to cross it from one side to another to transfer goods.

[@LearnLiberty]

Fair point!

[@UnorthodoxKnox]

@ Try to understand my comment for more than two seconds, and you'll see what I'm saying. Or don't and stay mad forever.

[@1dullgeek]

@@UnorthodoxKnox You might take your own advice when it comes to the OP's comment.

[@ISpitHotFiyaa]

That CEO argument was weak. There's a serious problem with corporate governance in this country and being that it's proxy season I think all investors know what I'm talking about. You'd need to move to North Korea to find a ballot with less choices than an American proxy ballot. And when you own your shares through a fund (how most people own them) you don't even get a proxy ballot. Also, this idea that failed CEOs are doomed and unhirable is ludicrous. These people always end up making good money somewhere. If nothing else some board seat will open up for them - so they can rubber stamp some other CEO's unnecessarily high pay package.

[@michaelsmith4904]

also, he talks about CEO pay compensqting them for the risk that they take, but omits the fact that a decision such as to foster a culture of fraudulently opening bank accounts is not a risk that ever should be rewarded, successful or npt!

[@xraceboyex]

CEO's are already paid exorbinantly. Wtf "risk" do you have taking a 6-7 figure job w/ benefits lmao. They can fire me with no cause any day they want at my job, and I didn't need to take a $15m bonus guarantee to work it lmao. A CEO takes no risk whatsoever in what job they work. They make my lifetime earnings in a few months. Risk isn't a concept to those people

[@xraceboyex]

​@michaelsmith4904 Oh yes, getting the highest pay in the company for no tangible work whatsoever is a huge risk - to the company 😂 CEO's ARE the risk. They're supposed to be paid for results, not bribed into "working" for you with bonus incentives. P.S. - The CEO is usually the owners brother/son or someone else close to them lmao

[@michaelsmith4904]

@ On the contrary... risk *is* a concept to these people. BUT... that is *all* it is to them. Risk is this thing that they "take" in the expectation of getting a "reward" or perhaps more accurately they make a calculation which tells them that the expected value of their decision across all outcomes is positive, and presumably greater than other other decisions they could make instead. It's all numbers (and to varying degrees "educated" guesses as to what those input numbers actually are). If I recall Warren Buffet admitted as much, it's just a way of keeping score that many people are not "good at", which I interpret as meaning that a lot of people don't care about keeping score in life but doing something worthwhile that makes some kind of contribution to society that they can see firsthand. I'm sure at least some CEOs contribute something to society at least some of the time. Their compensation (especially in the tiers above "CEO of the company I founded with my family") of course has nothing to do with this any everything to do with this risk/reward model that they have sold investors on.

[@michaelsmith4904]

And to add, I'm not saying that CEOs have sold investors on the risk/reward model itself. Being an investor to some extent implies that you have bought into this model already. What the CEO sells to investors is the that the specific numbers they have used as inputs to their calculations are reasonable and thus their estimations of things like future profits can be believed.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

The CEO of Disney has financially ruined Disney. He has not been fired. He has packed the board with friends & people who know nothing about the business Disney is in. It seems you can do a terrible job as a CEO & not worry about working again because you never got fired. CEOs are employees & in the case of Bob Iger with zero skin in the game. He sold nearly all of his Disney stock. CEOs and every member of the board are Employees, they should be paid a salary. They didn't build it. They don't own it. They don't get ruined if it fails. Their remuneration bares no relationship to the success of the company. They are all damaging the company in taking excessive payments reducing return to the actual owners of the company, it's share owners.

[@johnroberts9922]

Disney in 2024 had net revenues of $69 billion and a net profit of $7 billion. You are an idiot with an ax to grind.

[@ArtSmosh1274]

Disney is far from financially ruin.

[@liamwinter4512]

I found his compelling when I was 19 and than started paying for all my own life and found him wildly misleading

[@OctagonalSquare]

0:02 I had NO IDEA how short he was until that clip

[@Baldy4495]

On inflation I would like to add that right after all the free money and deficit spending, big gov economists said “see, no inflation! In fact, the economy’s great! The stock market is at an all time high and the real estate market is booming!” 😂

[@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky]

If anyone wants more videos debunking Robert riech I am the channel for that

[@gerryparker7699]

Clearly you aren't Mr average USA with stagnate wages for well over a decade. Sucking up to the US Oligarchs is fine if you get paid enough I guess.

[@ExPwner]

@@gerryparker7699wages have not been stagnant for decades dumbnuts.

[@BlackLibertarian]

In a free market, there is no such thing as "being overpaid". If both parties mutually consent, then the people are being paid exactly what people are willing to pay. If Lady Gaga makes $40 million singing songs, it's because her fans VOLUNTARILY AGREED to give her $40 million to sing songs.

[@xit1254]

Exactly right. So many commentors don't understand this. In a private market whatever the parties agree to is no one's business but the people involved in the transaction. Americans used to understand this, but the slow creep of government power has corrupted the people's ideas about freedom, and Reich is one of the biggest cheer leaders for government power.

[@manonjourney1]

The NY Giants fans would like to disagree.

[@BlackLibertarian]

@manonjourney1 "All hail the New York giants!" Everyone: "NEW YORK GIANTS!!!"

[@maxheadrom3088]

10:30 I agree that his comment about inflation isn't a good one. Now, a company never decreases prices to increase profit because that would mean decreasing profit to increase profit - it makes no sense. Companies will decrease profits to increase total gains. Also, the inflation in the US was not caused by those checks - it was caused by supply chain disruption, companies increasing profits to make up for the lost money during the pandemic and also energy (oil, mainly) companies provisioning for other periods. I don't know the details about the Oil Companies so I can't tell if it was only provisioning or if price gauging was involved. Why would someone treat Hitler and Mother Theresa in the same manner?

[@gregorythompson5334]

Inflation is not caused by companies, its caused by governments. The increased prices of product is the response to irresponsible politicians. A free government check means Inflation is around the corner.

[@favourayo]

You're confusing the profit margin with total profits. Here's an easy way to understand, Walmart actually makes less profit per product they sell than a typical small grocery shop, but they make orders of magnitude more on profit total, because they move more. Companies can increase their overall profit by reducing their profit margin and betting on increased volume of sales and it actually works more often than you'd think.

[@adamsholzhaus8196]

I came to the conclusion there are two types of monopoly. 1. Natural and 2. artificial. A natural monopoly happens when there is no outside forced policies (blotted government) where people are able to produce and sale a high quality low cost product, incentivizing others not to compete, no one is forced to buy said natural monopoly product. Artificial Monopoly is bloated government and its endless rules (specialty laws) giving a connected few power over the rest of us where they provide low quality high cost products all by the barrel of a gun held by the bloated government, everyone else wants to compete (incentivized by the high cost low quality product) but their right to choose is impeded.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

The only thing more infuriating than watching a Reich video is reading all the fawning comments from the economic illiterates in the comments section of his videos.

[@benjaminlehman3221]

6:47 professional athletes and CEOs are overpaid if you ask me

[@Nemesisnxt]

Maybe, but we don’t need regulations capping their pay.

[@1Skeptik1]

If you look closer, you will discover that most CEOs clean the bathroom before closing the shop doors on Saturday night. I was one of millions of small businessmen; I wore all the hats. (CEO, CFO, Controller, Purchasing agent, Marketing, accountant and production.)

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.

[@BlackLibertarian]

In a free market, there is no such thing as "overpaid". If both parties mutually consent, then the people are being paid exactly what people are willing to pay. If Lady Gaga makes $40 million singing songs, it's because her fans VOLUNTARILY AGREED to give her $40 million to sing songs.

[@tamirlyn]

@@BlackLibertarian Talking about a 'free market' is akin to talking about an "ideal gas" - it doesn't exist in reality. We're faced with pseudo-free market, where actors are not acting rationally, the government exists, and is not going to stop existing... We have to face reality and tackle these challenges, just the same. In a perfect world, with a free market, I'd agree about 'no such thing as overpaid', but in the real world, such a thing is very real, and we should do something about it.

[@maxheadrom3088]

1:22 Prof. Reich also calls it Cronyism or Crony Captalism.

[@SamBalducci]

The best lie, when he is introduced as an economist, he is a political commentator, but he never corrects the reporter or newsperson who announces him as an economist.

[@Knightmessenger]

It should be pointed out that Sears, Walmart or Amazon do benefit from government restrictions. Namely zoning that makes it illegal to have businesses in a neighborhood. This creates a regulatory environment that encourages big box stores and chain franchises but makes it really hard for one person with an independent idea to have a chance. Its not making an independent coffee store illegal at the behest of Starbucks, it's more like shadow banning while fooling people into thinking that is the result of a true free market.

[@maxheadrom3088]

4:30 some countries specialize in picking up the trash while others specialize in producing integrated circuits. Your justification of CEO gains also is incorrect because that doesn't happen in Germany, for instance. Also, he was talking of a CEO who let a really bad thing happen under his command and still got a fantastic retirement package.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

With regards to labor unions, the explanation of laws for organizing unions and the notion of "open shop" laws versus "closed shop" laws is a whole lot more nuanced than expressed in this video. Robert Reich got it wrong but so did the authors of this video. In most states where a labor union has a monopoly for a given employer, the workers need to hold a vote and a majority or even a supermajority of some kind (aka 60%+ of the employees voting) must support that union representing all employees. Even afterward, all employees represented by that union have a voice and a vote in union activities. If you want someone very familiar with parlimentary procedures and Robert's Rules of Order, just get a long time union member since nearly all union meetings often wrangle over procedures and who gets to speak. They take giving every member a voice very seriously. Open shop states tend to weaken unions to the point of them being ineffective. I have personally been fired from a job because I was merely sympathetic to helping organize a union, not even doing the active organizing. Open shop states make this a common practice even if it is illegal, since the penalties for doing that are so minor. It isnt perfect even in closed shop states, and I worked for a non-union company in a closed shop state where the employees rejected the labor union. It happens. It isnt the government cramming a union on employees or an employer by law as suggested in this video.

[@Barskor1]

Unions are a business with a monopoly on labor so no thank you.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

@Barskor1 Did you read a single thing I wrote?

[@Barskor1]

@@GlanderBrondurg Yes and it doesn't matter once the taste of easy money happens for the administrators of unions it is over.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

@Barskor1 From the tone of your comments, am I to presume you don't think labor unions should ever exist and that they should be made illegal?

[@johnhatchel9681]

I grew up in Flint,Michigan birthplace of the United Auto Workers Union. The UAW literally destroyed the state of Michigan. Corrupt, bloated, greedy. Total force of destruction.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

CEOs can make terrible decisions at almost no risk to them and then move on to the next company which does happily hire them. The claim that CEO get fired and never work again has no founding in reality.

[@geoffhart]

The analogy with pro-athletes and "risk" is a poor one anyway. A pro-baseball player isn't taking any real risk, and more than a minor league player (or even a softball player who does it just for fun). That isn't why they are paid so well. They are paid well purely based on what the owner thinks they will generate in income for the team (this is why different cities can pay players far different salaries: New York can generate much more revenue than Cleveland). The players simply try to get as much money as they can, regardless of what risks they may face (the lowest paid player faces the same risks as the highest payed player). Now why do boards pay CEOs? That is a good question. Some of it has to do with performance, potential performance. But a lot also has to do with networking: those guys get to know each other, that's part of the game. Not much we can do about that. But the real problem comes when "government influence" starts getting mixed in - that's something that we can make rules about (prevent the lobbyist-managerial-politician/bureaucrat carousel with laws preventing hiring of former government members in like industries).

[@xit1254]

Not true. Companies do not "happily hire" CEOs who have failed.

[@TheDeadMan79]

The price of a flight may have gone down, but they cram people in the planes and lately the planes have been falling apart. The regulatory agencies for airlines have been captured. Those are major problems.

[@kensurrency2564]

Nobody really understands economics. Thus it is impossible to debunk anything, when no one knows anything about a constantly evolving social ‘science’. I appreciate what Mr. Davies is trying to do. Essentially, he is simply exposing Reich as the demagogue that he is. Beyond that, we’re all learning as we go.

[@RA-ie3ss]

A healthy society isn't one that only invests in its specialized industry. A healthy country has a balance in industries.

[@pookatim]

You kinda missed a few important points with #5. During the pandemic, most people were not allowed to work. So the government giving them money to live on may have been inflationary but what would have happened if they lost their jobs, homes and vehicles? I would argue it was necessary to give money to people who were forbidden to work but not people who could work, work from home or are retired and don't work. Then there was the issue of interruptions in the supply chain that caused prices to skyrocket as well. So you are correct that "printing money" is inflationary it isn't the only factor.

[@gregorythompson5334]

You just proved government is the root of inflation by locking you up, giving you a check that you will have to pay back over the next decade all to look benevolent. Reich is a clown.

[@NitroModelsAndComics]

Double R had this coming. He has always been suspect, and when you look just to the side of his curtain you see the man behind the wheels. Thank you.

[@davidlewis6728]

every time i see reich standing, or even sitting next to anyone else, i feel like i have viewed into the spectacle that literally his entire worldview is derived from. honestly, comparing him to anyone in any regard seems to have the same effect.

[@detectiveofrivia311]

Monopolies in a free market are rare and they are only a problem if they are able to exclude others from joining their market.

[@damnguyen2721]

Athletes and singers dont move jobs out of america like CEO did that is why they are being hated

[@aar0n709]

So? Companies have to profit or they wont stay in business.

[@ido2267]

I stopped in the part where "the CEO never works again" It's not the case and that exactly what Robert is showing us

[@xit1254]

Citation needed.

[@ido2267]

@xit1254 "failing forward" CEOs that failed found another job as CEO very quickly

[@aar0n709]

@@xit1254 Most CEOs work well into old age and genuinely love business. Steve Jobs didnt need to come back he sold pixar to disney and couldve stayed retired but chose to come back because he likes business

[@AnAZPatriot]

This is why i didn't cash any stimulus checks. A drop in the bucket and ultimately no different than screaming into the wind, but it mattered to me.

[@williambariteau8108]

The only other thing I would say to saying that global trade is good is that it encourages peaceful coexistence with other countries. Nobody wants to go to war with someone from whom they depend on goods/services.

[@uriahbraden4314]

I missed the '7' in the title at first and thought that 23 minutes is not nearly enough time to debunk Robert Reich lies. Could make a video a day debunking 7 of his lies, and probably never catch up.

[@ThePoliticalCheckmate-hm8ky]

I have produce over ten videos debunking Robert riech arguments

[@freesk8]

Wonderful job. Loved this. Thanks! :)

[@LearnLiberty]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@FoxWolfWorld]

Stop letting Robert get away with saying his name is Reich with an “sh” sound. It’s pronounced “Rike”, as in the third one

[@nunterz]

Both "sh" and "k" is wrong pronunciation, if you treat it as a German word.

[@BlackLibertarian]

@@FoxWolfWorld Robert Rich He stars in that movie, "Rob Rich's Christmas Wishes"

[@darincarter4744]

Yeah it's sound that doesn't exist in English. Sh is closest

[@nunterz]

@@darincarter4744 though the sound doesn't exist on itself, you can pronounce it the way "Heigh ho" is pronounced in Snow White - without the O in the end. I also could probably transcribe it as "yh". If this all makes sense to you

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

He can pronounce his OWN name any way he likes and it is 100% correct for him to do so. You are 100% wrong if you try to tell someone else that they are pronouncing their OWN name wrong. On the other hand, Reich is 100% wrong when he tries to spin tales about the economy because the economy is not (unlike one’s OWN name) controlled by just one person but instead is something over which we all play a part.

[@DoritoWorldOrder]

So nice to see Learn Liberty getting back to its roots.

[@AntisepticHandwash]

I'm not sure I agree with the last point, that monopolies are only a problem when the government creates them. Government protectionism is a function of the ability to create/modify/dictate the environment in which business operates. Such ability is not restricted to just to governments: individuals, groups, and organizations can also wield this ability - the only difference is that instead of the consent of the governed / monopoly on force, they can use overwhelming wealth to buy/bribe their way to actualizing strategies for control. The problem then, isn't government power - it's overwhelming power, full stop. Would love to hear counterarguments to this.

[@ExPwner]

It’s historical fact that government creates all of the problematic monopolies. The state isn’t based on consent either

[@vyor8837]

Global trade is often a terrible idea, ergo its neither good or bad at the same time.

[@Zetirix]

Mr. Reich is a broken record, "we hate the rich," "Trump is bad..." Meanwhile he's a multimillionaire asking for more money. @ 1:36 Forbes estimated him at $4M in terms of net worth.

[@samcool4350]

But the rich are rigging the rules in their favor. Just because he’s rich doesn’t really mean anything

[@Zetirix]

@@samcool4350 They're only able to do so because the voters give them the legitimacy. Most people are too lazy to look up who's supporting the candidates. I'm in my 40s, and so sick of hearing "but the rich, but the rich!" We were warned in the 80s about what trading with the Chinese would do, and going all-in on places like WalMart...

[@missouri6014]

I was a department director in the hospital for 30+ years until I retired two years ago and I’ve been with hospitals with unions and without In your video in the beginning, I was questioning, and I made this comment to myself “he’s just making things up” And then when you went on your spiel about Robert exaggerating, the pay of CEOs and then the lightbulb went off in my mind because I happen to know a lot about this So as a department head in a hospital, you work your tail and you make 80 to 100,000 a year depending upon location but the CEO of that same hospital would make 1 million or more and trust me they did not work their tail off like I did I know because I would be in a meeting with them at least once a week and I was able to watch them up close not from afar so when you said that that told me you were just making things up and that’s where I had to shut the video down See you’re just trying to defend your turf so to speak rather than looking at Robert is saying from an overall perspective As much as you want Robert to be wrong, he is right So in the words of Mitt Romney went in the debate with Obama he said several times “nice try” That’s what I’m saying to you. “nice try”

[@Mike-mm4mx]

I think it's a very one sided analysis in this video. He's one of those who worships the free market yet never worked a day in the real world.

[@lakeguy65616]

I disagree with the CEO's pay. I have no problem with pay packages that are indexed to the long-term performance of the common stock, but too often, that isn't the case. And too often, when the stock fails to rise, the performance goals are lowered. They should not be rewarded for taking risks. Rewards are for succeeding. If you fail you lose. Rewarding failure leads to risky behavior.

[@LDJ-r8e]

In college we called it “moral hazard” of course, it’s one of those things rhat apply to us but not the ruling class and their buddies. For example, the bank bailout under Obama was probably the most explicit demonstration of this. We’re all slaves. Debt slaves.

[@BlackLibertarian]

I don't think people are being "rewarded for taking risks". People are being incentivized to take risks. Nobody will venture on taking a risk in the first place if there is no incentive to do so. Saying "If you take this risk, I will give you X" is sometimes the only way to convince people to take risks.

[@lakeguy65616]

@@BlackLibertarian I'm a libertarian too! You have to take risks. are you suggesting they are being incentivized to take too much risk? If they are given deferred compensation based such as options on the common stock, the board and senior management decide the appropriate level of risk. Its like a leading a horse with a carrot on a stick. The carrot are options with an exercise price will above the current price a reasonable date in the future. its got to be an attainable goal...

[@BlackLibertarian]

@ Hello fellow libertarian! 🙂 So, in a free market, there is no such thing as someone "taking too much risk". If someone voluntarily agrees to take on risk, they do so because they believe that the risk is manageable, or that it's profitable. They believe that they will be better off than if they don't take the risk.

[@lakeguy65616]

@ I disagree. If a bookie raises the payout on a black swan event, isn't that an inducement to accept greater risk? perhaps our disagreement is one of symantics? CEOs are not risking their own money, they are risking shareholder wealth. if the rewards are disproportionate to the risks, they are being induced to accept greater risks with OPM (other people money)...

[@watchdealer11]

Antony Davies is to Robert Reich what Tom Brady is to Snoop Dogg in Underdogs (a rapper playing an NFL star). You'd get the analogy if you've seen the movie lol.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

The Sports people comparison is a distraction. CEOs, are employees of a company that act as if they own it. They act in their own interest without any care for the long term survival of the company. They extract sufficient income now, to directly affect the income of those who actually do own the company. It's share holders. CEO pay has no corelation with the company performance. The idea that they have to make multiple lifetimes of income in a few years because if they are incompetent they might not work again is just ridiculous on it's face and is not born out in reality.

[@wesjones1417]

Then they would get replaced like any other employee doing the same. 99.9% of businesses don't have a CEO. And of the ones that do, the average income ranges by state from $106K to $160K. Davis is spot on here. Try starting a business for yourself and see just how much it actually takes, and what is needed to make it survive. 99.9% of it is unknown to you, which is why you don't understand what a CEO actually does. And if their strategies were short term, then all futures and prospecting in their company stock would cease. Companies that are destined for bankruptcy are not attractive stocks to buy for investors.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

@@wesjones1417 Try again. You said start your own business. I would own it. CEOs don't own the company. They are over paid employees with little to no skin in the game. As for sacking them. Why has Bob Iger not been sacked? He is well on the way to bankrupting Disney. He & his hand picked board (which is no board at all) have sold virtually all of their shares. If a CEO is incompetent, he deserves never to be employed again (on a board) but this is not born out by reality, is it? Failed CEOs do go on to be employed on boards & as CEOs. Unless you are on a board, why are you defending the people that are ravaging your pension by excessive extraction of wealth from companies they purport to run?

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

@@wesjones1417 "If their strategies were short term, then all futures and prospecting in their company stock would cease". How? I might not directly buy shares in them. Clever rick people might not directly invest in them. The vast majority of share ownership is by Insurance / Pension companies. There very rules insist that they own at least to a large degree the appropriate shares based on capital share of the index. "Nobody lost their job betting in IBM". As for tracker funds, you might know that Disney is a complete turkey but your very rules demand that your fund owns the appropriate amount of stock in this turgid company. Again, it is people being paid large bonuses for betting with other peoples money.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

@@wesjones1417 Again. CEOs of publicly listed companies in general have zero skin in the game. All they lose if their decisions destroy the company or set it on a path to destruction is reputational damage. Knowing he was about to be kicked off the Board for "Me too". Les' Moonves gave an unbreakable poison pill contract to Kurzman to utterly destroy Star Trek and through this, CBS. Has he suffered in any way as a result of this act of vandalism? Mark Carney while heading the Bank of England stated that if the UK voted for Brexit, house prices would instantly fall but up to a third (if only they would). Was he fired on the spot for espousing such a deranged position? Has he suffered any reputational damage? Bloomberg L.P. doesn't think so.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

@@wesjones1417 How about you give me an example of a CEO being fired for a decision which was not clear incompetence, but just went the wrong way. List one that did not find another managerial position at many multiples of the income of the average share holder in that company, within 12 months.

[@_Jax_55]

10% peak inflation is such BS! That was the establishments report, which is always wrong. True inflation was closer to 30% in many areas at minimum

[@YourBestFriendforToday]

No clue that the Robert guy was so short

[@nealkonneker6084]

Super high pay for CEOs galls me as much as anyone, but I have done the math. If you divide the multi million dollar CEO salary among the many thousands of workers it's typically just a couple hundred dollars each.

[@davidswift5687]

When an athlete is injured he or she suffers; when a CEO botches something both shareholders and workers may lose everything. You think these are comparable; I think you are silly.

[@jackintosh]

This is less of a debunk and more of a propagandists attempt to compare a CEO making a bad decision to an athlete suffering a career ending injury. A CEO gets a golden parachute, an athlete loses their endorsements.

[@tatianawhittaker]

Stossel can be wrong about things as well but Robert Reich as well as Paul Krugman get things extremely wrong. I also will point out that a free market economy doesn't equal Capitalism. In fact I would argue that a Free Market is the antithesis of Capitalism as it socializes economic planning because it is decentralized. Capitalism is centralized in nature as it is based on maximizing profits and therefore needs the government to protect monopolies and as Benjamin Tucker pointed out that at least 4 of those are:land, money, patents and tariffs. Another thing he doesn't understand and neither do Republicans is that taxation, aside from being robbery is trickle up not trickle down.

[@earleford8889]

You miss the point on CEO. Reich is talking about people not making their compensation based on merit. Also the difference between the CEO and the average worker. If I am fired for incompetence I do not get anything because I don’t deserve anything based on my value to the company. Golden Parachutes should not be allowed.

[@richardw5198]

Im generally curious about his last points. Perhaps some data to back them up would help immensely. As anecdotally it feels (I understand this is terrible evidence) like the food and travel are significantly more expensive. It would be great to see how his point is supported

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

Walmart continues to grow. Walmart has NOT shrunk at all because it has gone into a market that Amazon really cannot exploit and that is mass market groceries. Even though Amazon bought Whole Foods, they are limited to upper income consumers in terms of groceries by the very nature of Whole Foods’ market.

[@rayshepherd2479]

Walmart is successful because they sell stuff at lower prices than the competition. Their net profit margin is around 2%. They also now sell stuff online like Amazon.

[@wardrenick9079]

"Capitalism" and "Communism" have rarely truly existed. They are just different labels and methods for "Cronyism." Example: Elon Musk's wealth is primarily tied to Government incentives and contracts.

[@davidlewis6728]

capitalism has existed multiple times in the past, though i can't explain here. communism has been tried countless times, but all result in the same thing, cronyism.

[@THEScottCampbell]

Robert Reich is a tiny Trotsky.

[@gerryparker7699]

Where as Elon Musk and the rest of the US Oligarchs are self centred egomaniacs bent on controlling much of the US for their own personal gains, striding the world like ancient gods! Forgive me, I'll go with Trotsky.

[@josephhendricks2073]

Great video

[@DistributistHound]

Free markets: it's true that while capitalism and cronyism are different in terms in practice there are few or non examples truly free market all of them degrade into the concentration of capital with or without the help of the government, even capitalism has more in common in that regard to communism as they both end up concentrating power either privately or publicly

[@michaelsmith4904]

inflation also can be cause by increasing velocity of money... stimulus checks were to ombat abnormally low velocity and combat deflation. and it was known that it would be hard to unwind, but the alternatives were deemed worse.

[@douglasbrittain7018]

This is my opinion so it is what it is. I think they had to give that stimulus out because due to the pandemic they were much more concerned about an economic collapse. It was a short term temporary fix but it gave them more time to get everything stabilized. I knew from the beginning that this would cause severe inflation in a few years which it did but that’s my take on it.

[@michaelsmith4904]

@@douglasbrittain7018 yes, exactly. people were not spending so the velocity of money plummeted, and in addition to deflation enough business that depend on cash flow and the just-in-time nature of the economy were in trouble that it could have caused an economic collapse.

[@stuartegrin7543]

Best specialization argument has been debunked

[@williamthompson2941]

This was good.

[@nickpetrillo2773]

Sorry I'm not seeing any "debunking" here: He makes some sound arguments and some points - but many of them are "distinctions," or clarifications - of Robert Reich's statements: In short- neither of them is "lying."

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

I am not sure I would trust an economist on Economics. Don't they encourage infinite borrowing/printing money money as a nation and nothing will ever go wrong. Don't they say that running a long term trade deficit is no problem at all. Don't economists claim that the rule of Supply and Demand does not apply to House Prices or Wages when it comes to massively expanding the available labour force with Immigration. Don't economists think that hyper immigration infinity is good, even for countries like the UK which is very small. They do so without consideration for where those people might live, what roads they might drive on, hospitals, power stations or water reservoirs. Nor do they care that the UK is vastly beyond its carrying capacity, requiring dirty shipping for every day goods.

[@joshualieberman138]

I enjoy Robert Reich because he plays on people's fear and lack of understanding. Most people really don't know how businesses work, so the average worker doesn't understand what needs to happen to run a business. They just feel they aren't getting their fair share.

[@justinmoser6163]

Great stuff!

[@Lilhomiecooscoos]

Anthony is missing key things that affect decision making also. When he speaks on crony capitalism he does not take it to a global level. He does not show how oligarchies move money globally? Or how kleptocracy has allowed measures to keep corporations in power over the people? There is also the black market that is never stated in his science? Which is a little disturbing since things don’t happen in a laboratory or bubble alone? Exploitation of labour, taking peoples ideas and not compensating them, producing cheap goods at a faster rate all undermines the market but is never factored in. Look at fast fashion and how trends work and company’s trying to keep up that system of production while exploiting its workers! Bailing out the corporation too big to fail by governments fear and supporting bad business is also to at work in this system. Everyone wants to be rich at what cost? There is no honor system. And where Anthony wants to point out what half truths Reich is talking about how about talking about all the truths? Sex trade, human trafficking, scarcity mindset of the rich, the gap between classes and no human dignity about the planet nor the things in it! We stand at a place in history where you can cut each other down, or build each other up and in that place we must dream of better future for our children. No future for the youth unless we rewrite the narrative. No one is free unless we all are free. Stop being complicit in your own exploitation. The system is pimping us all the way it is intended too. Either help change it or continue to stick your head in the sand and make up excuses for its abuse it’s shown to you. The choice is yours. Good luck all. End the global fascist oligarchy.

[@chubbyninja842]

Preach, brother!

[@josephseewald4687]

Very good, Rob Reich should have never been listen too in his entire life. Since my college days I have always known this mans economic advice was the oppose of how to understand the situation. Always a tale of half truths.

[@Bloakschmub]

I thought Ricardos free trade has been disproven. He wrote before airplanes and so couldnt forsee the free movement of not just money and capital across borders but labor (people) as well. To say nothing of ideas thru instant mass communication

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

I would argue that many careers are very risky and can be ended by injury. Take construction workers for example. Very few do not get injured to one degree or another, including being deleted. The inflation was a product of the stimulus bills that the GOP fought against and pointed out that it would lead to hyperinflation. That combined with the unecessary shutting down of the US economy was a double-whammy. I would also argue that a lack of confidence in Biden contributed and his anti-US-oil policies in his first year also spurred it on.

[@bennymarshall1320]

So your arguement goes that Reich is a crony capitalist because politicians have the influence to change the rules of the game even though he is no longer a politician nor trying to change the rules of any game for any material gain that you can identify?

[@damspachercomedy]

I am more and more against this wall st, corporate investor type capitalism. It's leaving most Americans behind. Besides, why do rich free marketers always seem to get tax payer funded socialism, but they turn around and fight it when working people get it? Tax breaks, loopholes, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

[@The_Flamekeepers]

I am a Davies & I approve this message.

[@holdmybeer123]

Excellent video!

[@LearnLiberty]

Thank you very much!

[@RussellNelson]

0:02 Oh lord, he's short.

[@Atreus21]

People in the comments really REALLY want to keep CEO's in the bad guy category.

[@bennymarshall1320]

'The examples he uses have nothing to do with trade, he talks about for example, people who are connected using TRADE...' Uhhh?

[@andreipopescu5342]

You see prof Antony Davies, you drop a like!

[@gerryparker7699]

Fascinating that despite growing inequality Antony decides to focus on Robert Reich, rather than lets say, Elon Musk's impact in both political meddling and it's connection to his growing wealth. To compare Reich to average people is ridiculous as justification, by comparison to someone like Musk's impact and crucially resources. Davies tries to give the impression of being balanced but he is so clearly not.

[@michaelsmith4904]

next let's debunk the debunking of the debunker...

[@lo-fidevil2950]

No one understands inflation. It isn’t a rise in prices. It’s an increase (i.e., an “inflation”) of the money supply. When the supply of anything increases its price decreases. For example say a dollar is worth two bananas. Then the gov inflates the money supply. Now a dollar is only worth one banana. Sure the price of a banana rose from 50 cents to a dollar. But don’t confuse that price rise with inflation, because when you do, it obscures the cause of the inflation: government adding money to the economy. Why does it matter? Because another way to say “adding money” is “politicians buying votes.” As long as we understand that, we can see through the accounting tricks behind inflation. If a politician gives you money, YOU pay for it because the more he gives, the less it’s worth.

[@JanRiffler]

Every. Single. Time.

[@cbbcbb6803]

Then do not have any protected monopolies. Why not expand a country's skill set? Use the force of government? What does that mean? You should always be skeptical, if not outright suspicious, of everything you do not see or understand. That applies to any non transparent enterprise. To any. Does not mean they may be bad, but, does not mean they are good. You just do not know.

[@adriangalysh]

Do you think Robert is dumb or simply dishonest?

[@ExPwner]

Both

[@Lilhomiecooscoos]

Stop giving welfare to corporations and stop acting like corporations have the best interest of the people at heart they don’t. They are for profit of human lives. It’s let’s make a CEO rich and how much they and squeeze out of the workers and the consumer. Stop sugar coating economics to make it digestible to the rich so they can feel better about themselves. You don’t get rich without stepping on the backs of others who can’t afford to speak up. Same game just different players and names. We can’t go on consuming with no regard to consequences.

[@cliffhutchison861]

Defining what *corporations are* is key to differentiating "what we have" from what a true free market would be. Explain in explicit detail how a corporation is created. That will make very clear that corporations get their very existence when people sign agreements with *government agencies,* usually Secretary of State offices in state governments.) Until then it's easy for any halfwit tool to "debunk" anything you say with "but the corporations...blah, blah, blah".

[@CaptainCamellot]

Was it a weird coincidence that right after you accuse Dr. Reich of benefiting from cronyism you advertise for your speaking tour?