Thomas Sowell - Tax Cuts For The Rich

Higher tax rates (symbolism) or higher tax revenue (substance)? History says you can only have one. www.LibertyPen.com

[@friggindoc]

I used to be a leftist but then I heard Friedman and Sowell speak...

[@Nemo-un5rr]

Glad you left the dark side and we are glad to have you!

[@romzen]

next step: move on to von Hayek and von Mises. compared to them frieman and sowell are socialist statists.

[@conni70]

abandoning leftist ideology is a sign of maturity..

[@RickOAA]

Sowell himself was once a self described Marxist.

[@GebreMMII]

Relatable, but the economics I personally don't see how conservatives see this. Sowell claimed it's never been done before; yet Reagan himself has. How does that really make sense? He lowered the tax rate at one of its highest points ever yes (70%), but we've still maintained about the same rates (28-39.6; significantly big yet nowhere as big as it was then. At the cost of that, he'd cost the country nearly triple what it owed, yet managed to "End the recession". That's just me, however.

[@daveo576]

I was a lefty for years until I actually took an interest in economics. The longer you study economics the more right-leaning you become.

[@janicestrawder1901]

Are you an working economist? Studies have shown that students of economics lean right. Professional economists largely lean left. Reality bites.

[@daveo576]

Janice Strawder which studies? Link?

[@MichaelAnderson-xj7jl]

Yes, if you only study rudimentary neoclassical theory.

[@cperez1000]

link?

[@70ofblacksraisedbysinglemo98]

Janice Strawder Im now the 3rd one asking you this. But link?

[@kylejantjies7280]

This guy is a great interviewer

[@brethitmanhart275]

Truth. Thomas Sowell is a great interviewee as well

[@Angelina-qx1gp]

In the 1970s the UK Labour government had the top rate of tax at 83%. This led to high earners leaving the country. Punitive tax rates do not work.

[@MarkBH70]

They want it worldwide. So no one can escape--except the rich. They pretty much always do.

[@RickOAA]

Same with France...and people are delighted over it. Who's going to pay for all the "free" stuff?

[@nohbuddy1]

Angelina Bullshit. They never invest if you give them tax cuts. Demand creates jobs period.

[@01frosts]

Good. Get out of England. They haven't "trickled down" a single penny to the lesser off.

[@willardchi2571]

Good. Let them leave. That makes room for others to rise up.

[@alexanderchenf1]

I would love the people around me getting richer. More charity, tips and customer spendings for me.

[@arminius6506]

From another perspective (satisfy left leaning fellows) : I should love people to get rich because they would pay more taxes which would give government more money to invest in health and education

[@JNM578]

@John Smith YES! When you tax more you just encourage them to leave the country instead of re-investing their wealth into good projects that actually benefit everyone long-term. Malinvesments and distribution of wealth would lead to economic stagnation.

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@arminius6506 Oh yes, sure they would invest on well fare... hahaha that's very naive of you.

[@harmanjotsingh4230]

@@arminius6506 so you trust bereacracy to allocate spending and resources instead of private sector carry on

[@arminius6506]

@@harmanjotsingh4230 lol.. I was saying that you can say this to these big government loving liberals who believe in high taxation.... How can you collect taxes when there is no economic productivity and people aren't rich

[@markpugner7340]

The Bernie supporters are trickling into the comment section.

[@klewqa]

@Mark Pugner That is democracy. Different interests and different opinions.Thomas Sowell is an libertarian who speaks for the interests of the Multi Billionaries for example the Koch-Brothers. And the Bernie supporters speaks for the interests of the middle class people and the ordinary people. And the multibillionaire President Donald Trump like other Presidients (R. Reagan) before, will cut the taxes for the rich and himself. At this Cases you see, the US- Democracy is create for the rich People. Many libertarian think tanks like the "Sons of Libertas" and you, are doing a lot to keep it that way.

[@RickOAA]

@Andi Jack...Sanders has the support of delusional and falsely altruistic ideological college kids with little to no life experience. That a self described socialist has in mind the best interests of the middle class is a real joke. The ultimate goal is selling terrible ideas to indoctrinated fools. People like Bernie optimize the leftist establishment. They're not a cure to anything. People like him are part of the problem.

[@klewqa]

RickOAA "Everyone gets it, the poor, the rich, the middle class, the deserving and the undeserving alike. You, me, Rupert Murdoch, Beyonce, and the homeless man sleeping in the gutter get exactly the same cash payment. It is nothing if not equitable and fair. UBI is not a new idea. It was mentioned in the Bible, proposed by Tom Paine, almost enacted into law by Richard Nixon in 1969." Tom Streithorst

[@ITILII]

Wish they'd trickle out of the country and take those vast numbers of illegals with them

[@gregl3580]

Wrong, this is a republic.

[@deadman12078]

The majority of the people do not see it that way. They seem to think that rich people owe the nation for their prosperity. They don't understand that a person who has acquired wealth provides goods and services and employment for people. They pay property and sales tax in the community they live in as well as wherever the business is located. The persons they employ pay taxes too... The more you tax the less incentive there is to stay... hence outsourcing and offshore accounts

[@Jeevanm71]

Why not cut out the loopholes in our tax system instead of cutting taxes?

[@camperiv1]

Because the laffercurve still applies then?

[@jordanpage3846]

A loop hole is just a deduction that some people can take and others cant.

[@abdulrahmanchalya7873]

that's what happened after the tax cut in the Reagan era the rich never actually paid 70% income tax

[@ivarbrouwer197]

Or increase minimum wages, if the rich don’t want to part with their money after earning, make sure they have to spend it on labour first. (Value labour as an asset more)

[@ryanalexander5438]

@@ivarbrouwer197 I think you'll find that most rich people reinvest their money (if the conditions are right to make profits i.e. lower tax rates). This investment creates jobs and more employment. More employment should create more competition for workers and thus higher wages. Simply raising minimum wage can lead to job losses as well as higher prices in goods - so you could be out of a job (especially in these days of automation) or the hike in price of goods goes up so your spending power doesn't;'t go up any.

[@kat_c225]

You Sir are an American treasure 🇺🇸

[@chief1b]

I have read several books by Dr. Sowell. Thank you for your insight. Now I am teaching the unteachable liberalism of the democratic mindset'

[@MrDanielfff777]

What is your fav?

[@Katalmach]

You exactly prove my point. They never chose to leave because they prefer tariffs, it lessens competition and raises barriers to entry which makes market domination easier at the expense of the consumer.

[@ironcityblue]

The collective has no authority over the wealth property and labor of others.

[@ArnoldvanKampen]

Why should the collective accept if it is the other way around?

[@cperez1000]

neither should accept it. The fascists believed that the individual didn't matter, as the collective is like a body and the individual is like a single cell, so one cell on its own was nothing, but I think the opposite is true, the cell is so important because it's the basic unit that composes the body, so the individual must be the most important thing to focus on, and from that the body will follow.

[@anotherbadseed]

And that answer brings you up to a fundamental point. That there are only so much resources and they can be tangibly taken and codified as owned, but there will still be more people coming. This (if for no other humanist reason) is where enlightened democratic socialism kicks in. Some of these people won't (through no fault of their own) have access to anything with which to create wealth. Sure, there are pull yourself up by your own bootstraps ways of getting around this for some individuals, but no guaranteed way, and realistically as the resources go away these chances become less and mess numerical for those who start with nothing. Thus the only realistic guarantee for a free society is to guarantee some form of welfare (health, education, stipends) for those that want (someone else will take their place in the better positioning of the economic chain if they refuse it) or need it. (It's also the point where the libertarian world view falls apart.)

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@anotherbadseed Ok, but has it worked sometime?

[@makhnothecossack4948]

Same should apply to the individuals. Don't take the value someone has created with their job. Wait a minute... That is the whole basis of wage labor: trying to pump out as much as possible from the individuals work without them realizing that they are getting screwed over and hard.

[@genealso6726]

All it takes is for you to listen to Sowll and Friedman. Conservative fiscal policy is not perfect but it's the best we got.

[@DarthBalsamic]

I'm reading this book now and it's sooo good. Definitely inciteful and truly illuminates the foolery among the political class. Alot of of people fall for this stuff Sowell is pointing out. Good stuff. Take heed.

[@qwertyuiopqwerty112]

Good pun!

[@duaneronan8199]

What would happen if the income tax were eliminated entirely? Revenues from other tax sources would increase so much they would overwhelm the lost income tax revenue. Try explaining that to the cattle on their way to the slaughter house. I tried.

[@Katalmach]

I'll check them out, thanks. It's always good to get a wider point of view.

[@JPGtampa]

He's a great "Suthor" 😂😂

[@mikeorclem]

cutting the tax rate is like having a sale at a store...the store sells all of the item and ends up with more money..

[@hariman7727]

Raising taxes is like taking away a runner's lunch, then telling him to exercise harder. Or standing on a person's throat and telling them to breath deeper.

[@adamsrealm]

Actually it’s for the middle class, the people who buy stuff and drive economic growth.

[@iandexter4204]

This is literally just common sense. But unfortunately there are people who just don’t understand this fundamental economic principle and it’s sad to know that.

[@fzqlcs]

Government intervention with labor laws and workplace regulations have made American labor uncompetitive and forced outsourcing. The solution is not to punish consumers by taking away less expensive choices, it is by stripping away government's ability to make domestic products so pricey. Products exist to meet consumer demands not simply because producers produce them.

[@jowb63]

First off his argument was about the effect of tax rates on tax revenue. He said nothing about deficits which are the difference between revenue and spending which were large under both Regan and Bush. What you need to look for was how much tax revenue was collected under those administrations and how that revenue was broken up income. I would assume the amount of tax revenue increased but spending increased faster then revenue. That is why they had deficits.

[@LadyTee751]

This man is genius

[@MrSamuelPascal]

We need him to speak up for the economics community . We never use trickle down economics it does not exist!

[@heimerblaster976]

STUDY: Tax Cuts For The Rich Didn’t Trickle Down: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2KsaXetf6Zomc0 But then again most know giving money to the middle is the best ways to achieve sustainable growth.

[@MrDanielfff777]

What your vid says "jobs and growths" Sowell is talking about the rich paying more taxes

[@DOHC2L]

Wow that's an astute statement! You nailed it. In 18 words... wow. Plus the triple-oh-so-perfect terminology fits with the topic perfectly. Moreover that term isn't ambiguous either it's the most precise. =]

[@thomasryan5736]

The “Laffer Curve” proved the question. As did Dr. Sowell. Smartest man in the world today!

[@jpkfarrell9915]

the laffer curve is fine but doesnt apply much on smaller increases in tax rates. no sensible person expects top rate to return to the 70 or 90% of fifty years ago but 40-50% with loopholes closed and audits wo'uld serve well, also increased anti trust activity. recent inflation is partly down to those with dominant pricing power ....... we rich are entitled to our corner but the main drivers of prosperity are more the smaller innovators and first generation commerce generally.

[@darthhodges]

I would argue the point this way. If you want your employer to pay you more, take less of his money in taxes. Then he will have extra to give to you, or to hire more workers, or to improve your working conditions. The rich understand that you have to spend money to make money and if they have more they spend more on the things that they think will make them money. Of course if the person works for the government or a non profit entity that doesn't pay taxes this argument might not work.

[@bradleysmith681]

Too bad Sowell doesn't use proper information regarding Kennedy.. Kennedy didn't cut taxes.. He reduced the top rate to 71% -- but at the same time increased rates on capital gains and closed loopholes. He rearranged the taxes because he understood the rich were claiming more and more as capital gains. The end result of Kennedy's rearrangement was a tax INCREASE...

[@xyzsame4081]

I heard that on Thom Hartman (with an audio clip or the debate between Nixon and JFK) - he had a libertarian or conservative on and it was a hence and forth between their discussion and the interruped old recording. Do you have a source ? There are transcripts (I assume it must have been in 1960) but didn't find that specific exchange (I did not search very long). Thanks !

[@DarthBalsamic]

Did you read the book? Actually read it and see where he goes with this sir. He speaks on this specifically. He himself acknowledges where things went wrong in the book. The Andrew Mellon story highlights this very point. He is using proper info, you just didn't read the book and where he went with this point. Sowell is providing insight into why we can't arrive at healthy, and truthful economic principles. Kennedy, like politicians on both sides, have historically been derelict on following through with correct policy because of political nonsense. He illustrates this clearly in the book.

[@mindseye7909]

TS is a fantastic economist but keep in mind that governments do not solely operate and exist in the confines of an economist's frame and other factors affect policy decisions. In other words, take everything with a grain of salt because the reality is not always based in science and logic.

[@jacobgeist5249]

He gives 4 examples: 2 coincided with massive bubbles which obviously increased revenues, 1 (JFK) actually worked, and Reagan tripled the national debt. Not the best track record.

[@xyzsame4081]

Presidential race 1960. Nixon claimed that JFK (Yep !) wanted to reduce the taxes on the rich. - JFK begs to differ: He was for 72 % effective !! income tax rate. - People like me pay too little in taxes. The nominal tax rate will look lower but actually we will RAISE more tax revenue and I intend to spend it on education. * * free education of course the official highest top marginal tax rate was maybe still around 80 to 90 % * but there were too many loopholes. There had been also a covert tax reduction going on since end of WW2 but it is hard to nail it down because of the loopholes. And it benefitted especially wealthy people. The intended 72 % were sold as effective TAX INCREASE - not only more revenue, but higher taxes. During all the debates issues were military spending (big bad Soviet Union which had made progress also economically) versus balancing the budget and the farm bill. So that would indicate they needed more money and ran or expected to run deficits. And maybe JFK did not shy away from taxing wealthy people more. Education was a big thing after the Sputnik shock. I have heard that exchange on the program of Thom Hartman (it might have been a radio debate). * You can check out "history of taxation in the U.S." on Wikipedia - scroll down. the usual threshold was 2,7 million USD in todays money (USD 400,000 then).

[@danielocampo5777]

The problem with the bush tax cuts is that they led to bubble of demand and accumulation of debt thereof that causes the great recession. It was priming the pump during boom years that caused the increased output gap. The major expenditure that left the budget so unbalanced was the set of unnecessary wars fought during his administration.

[@jean-mariebontemps7501]

During the 1970s, inflation was running close to double digits. Therefore the figures given by Mr. Sowell are slightly misleading with regard to his comparison on the proportion of income tax revenues paid by incomes above 100 000 (see 2:10). Nevertheless, the statistic given is somewhat interesting.

[@jacob8949]

He was talking about the 20s, not the 70s...

[@therealjasonc1243]

Jake Tudball lol wrong decade Jean-Marie Bontemps , you guys always want to take Sowell down because he tells the TRUTH!

[@CptOlimar]

Agree or not, he explained the reasoning behind his argument. What's the reasoning behind your argument? For that matter, what exactly is your argument? (Trying to outright discredit the validity of one's argument via ad hominem is not an argument.)

[@the_Analogist4011]

somebody need to explain this to me. what David Graeber said about corporate income taxes in particular seems true too. He said that things like Research and Development which lower taxable revenue were what companies spent a lot of their money on to avoid the high tax rates. It sounds very familiar, especially when I hear Technology Connections tell the story of RCA through the development of the CED. Super high corporate income tax incentivises companies to spend their resources internally because it is essentially lost to taxes. Places like RCA that held and were trying to get more patents had a business model that, per my understanding, would have help them evade high tax rates because of how much they dumped into R&D. note: it will still carry into individual incomes taxes when employees wages and salaries are taxed, but owners and investors are the class of people who get to write off the R&D credits as individuals as well. these are the people who get paid on K-1's and not W-2's

[@FootballRob2010]

Didn't Ross Perot advocate for trickle down economics?

[@Katalmach]

"The rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods.[13] Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[10]" Statistics indicate that the closing of factories was not affected by NAFTA in any major degree. Pointing to lost jobs, then pointing to free trade does nothing to show the causation.

[@CptOlimar]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I assumed that you were simply saying that Sowell was wrong.

[@Siegetower]

Actually the unions create jobs in Asia - by driving up the price of labour to the point that it makes more sense to not produce here at all. Why aren't car plants built in Detroit anymore? Because it is cheaper to build them in Mexico or Thailand or Brazil at the same quality as Detroit, and use that profit to pay off the pension liabilities on unionised US labour that almost banrupted the car companies in 2008. And Sowell is just a messenger, no use you shooting him.

[@thebestofallworlds187]

just got this little book.

[@lemonblue6282]

I was taught the term and general idea of trickle down economic theory in high-school 1986 or 1987.

[@gerardjones7881]

Thatcher framed the same economic philosophy as all boats float on a rising tide.

[@richtea615]

Tax is a disincentive to do things. That's why we keep adding tax to things like tobacco; to disincentivise people from smoking. Higher tax rates on income decrease economic activity because there is a reduced incentive to work and high incentive to find loopholes around tax rules. Lowering tax rates increases the incentives to work and to buy things, raising overall tax receipts. There is nothing complicated about this and it should be a fundamental understanding taught to high schoolers.

[@rmv9194]

I wonder what is Sowell's opinion about the bail outs

[@Brian626]

He would undoubtedly be opposed, just as Milton Friedman is. Bailouts are a form of corporatism, a counter-agent to a free and open Market - which Sowell undoubtedly believes very strongly in.

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

Failure to bail out the banks would've resulted in another Depression. So fuck the banks for being retarded.

[@raaaaaaaaaam496]

TheUndeadslayer221 no. The FDIC protects people from bank failure and allows us to get our money regardless of bank foreclosure.

[@abdulrahmanchalya7873]

@@TheUndeadslayer221 the banks weren't being retarded the government forced Fannie mac and Freddie may to give out loans to risky lenders both banks were state-sponsored and had loans for nearly 50% of the housing market and 40% of their loans had to be for low-income individuals

[@logann127]

I MEAN, WHERE I COULD GET THE NUMBERS HE IS SAYING

[@heimerblaster976]

Shhhh it's a theory ;)

[@adamthemyth]

It's a shame we'll never get a debate between Sowell and Chomsky.

[@SEELAYTRAY777]

regan said it several times

[@Katalmach]

The Chinese state forcibly raising worker standards would result in improved conditions for some, lower wages and\or unemployment for others - particularly the least skilled. Since the price of the worker is incorporated in worker standards, either the wage must go down or the price must go up to compensate. If the price must go up, if it goes up too much this results in unprofitablity, the dissolution of that company and subsequent unemployment. I'm sure that would make workers very happy.

[@Justicejamesb]

This is the exact reason that President Trump should lower the top tax rate from 39% to 20% with no-deductions. The US economy would take off.

[@TheJulsMan]

Would never happen. Why would wealthy people want to pay 20% ... when they pay closer to 15% (even with a 39% tax rate).

[@MRios1128]

Julian King he did it for corporations

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

Corporations pay next to nothing and some pay absolutely nothing (General Electric is a prime example).

[@MixtapeKilla2004]

That's right!

[@Atombender]

The Fortune 500 companies pay an average of 12% of their gross revenue in corporate taxes. Lowering the top rate from 39% to 20% would do jack to their net incomes. In fact, the biggest companies like Apple have used the Trump tax cuts to buy back company shares to increase their market cap. As a result, we now have two $1 trillion companies (Apple & Amazon).

[@fzqlcs]

It is amazing how often I run in to you and your pro-protectionist mantra. You really must hate consumers to want them to arbitrarily pay higher prices just to support those industries that brandish political power. People have a choice to buy American, but often choose not to because the product can be produced elsewhere for a better value. You want to narrow choices and force people to pay high prices.

[@MrFrankyGification]

In terms of Laffer Curve (which this is about) I don't know of any evidence that says for certain which part of the curve we are on.

[@Katalmach]

I've already explained that protectionism hurts the poorest Americans most by reducing their buying power. Goods are more expensive with protectionism and that affects the poorest most. The problem is that low skilled workers face the minimum wage which makes it impossible for them to enter the workforce and acquire better skills. Even with protectionism it is very unattractive for corporations to hire low skill American labour because of the minimum wage.

[@purplechum9]

Why does tax cuts for the rich in states always results in major deficits?

[@abdulrahmanchalya7873]

cause it takes a couple years until the tax rates grow higher than before and people sight Reagan saying deficits were high throughout his whole administration but ut was due to way higher spending tax revenues actually doubled under Reagan

[@tenholindberg9862]

@@abdulrahmanchalya7873 yes it has every time been establishement dnc president who had re balanced it every time and that is in a nutt shell american project. When gop is in power spend lend and do not give a damn, bcoz those self righteous dnc will always fall the same trick to play the role who have to say now we need to cut public programs like social security bcoz of a deficit

[@charleswhite7035]

Tax cuts never pay for themselves. You end up reducing services or increasing deficits. Any economist that says otherwise is lying to you.

[@Katalmach]

I do not disagree that protectionism under certain circumstances can strengthen a state, I simply say that it the state and the people are different entities. And in the long term protectionism will harm development. I do not want to rely on government officials trying to tinker with the economy in the interest of the public. That is presuming that they are capable of doing that consistently right and that they are incorruptible. It relies on the right man in the right place.

[@rredhawk]

Generally more tax money for the state means less money (capital) for businesses which means less growth, less profit, and thus less TAX money produced by business to be collected by the state at whatever rate the latter decides to impose. It's not really that hard of a concept to anyone who can think beyond immediate effects.

[@jpkfarrell9915]

tax loopholes and audits are the biggest issues....................... the top rate can also be increased but not to old high levels, all with more equitable results. transfer of wealth to rich in recent years has been radical. the rich are entitled to their corner but not at everyone elses' disadvantage.

[@Katalmach]

Except corporations if corrupt cannot force people to do their bidding. The same CANNOT be said of the government. You cannot support anyone in particular because if the government has the capacity to arbitrarily discriminate between classes and income groups then rights, equity, limited government, all of these are in grave danger.

[@Daniel-lo5pt]

Socialism for the rich

[@Katalmach]

This is exactly what I meant when I said that people like you care more about equality than the poor. As long as the gap between rich and poor is smaller that would justify any policy even if it would make everyone less wealthy. As someone already pointed, the economy is not a zero sum game, nobody is forcing those asian workers to work there - in the absence of those companies they might be jobless.

[@Katalmach]

Additionally not every company has sufficient profit to shoulder additional tariffs or taxes. Not every company has 80$ dollars profit per product or whatever. Some may be barely breaking even and government intervention can break them in this situation, indirectly at many times.

[@Katalmach]

Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Labour is a service. Buying low is a basic imperative of corporations. So it is trade. Whether it is beneficial or not is a different issue. I have explained over 30 comments why it is, you have explained why it is not.

[@Katalmach]

It isn't in the form of prices? Why not? It's an objective fact that prices rise due to tariffs. It is an opinion that those Americans will not find other jobs, with potentially higher skill requirement. Imports also support jobs just as much as exports. Currency rates fall or rise to correct for excessive imports or exports. Outsourcing strengthens both multinational and American companies to expand their businesses and provide more jobs.

[@salvadorprieto6408]

Taxation without reprensentation

[@Katalmach]

If they hinder domestic industries from competing, then that is only due to barriers of entry by the government. Competing and losing is not being 'hindered' from competing, it is the natural course of the market. If they cannot compete then they are not as efficient as the other company.

[@davidcopperfield408]

Andrew Mellon said tax cuts for the rich would trickle down as jobs. Look up the quote. He was sect of treasury 1921 to 1932. Great Depression 1929.

[@raymondcarter8915]

Sowell Addresses this. www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

[@Katalmach]

The government is taking an action by instituting tariffs. The efficiency of tariffs is disputed. Tariffs do not affect everyone equally. Free trade is simply the absence of tariffs. The burden of proof lies on those that want to take positive action that modifies how things naturally are. But the government doesn't care about the efficiency of tariffs. They care about political incentives first, efficiency later. A tariffs might help today, but tomorrow another might cause untold harm.

[@beenright5115]

So wait, the argument is that if the taxes are to high the rich find loopholes? Then remove the loopholes! I remember about a decade ago Switzerland and USA had the same corporate tax... But in the USA very few companies pay the actual fill tax rate due to all the loop holes. There are armies of tax experts for this purpose. And I've actually mainly heard conversations talk about trickle down economics, not the left

[@TheMrFanntastic]

Like I said, we do not have a free market economy and we do not promote a free market economy. I do not agree with our current policies like I stated above.

[@Katalmach]

I say no to all of them. I support state intervention in enforcing contracts between workers and employers. This necessitates the employer to make it clear in the terms of the contract the conditions in which the worker will work. It is up to the worker if he wants to work under those conditions or not. If the conditions are violated by the employer he must be punished with legal action. The problem of pollution has already been addressed here by private ownership of land.

[@duaneronan8199]

That music. Isn't it the same as in the movie 'Bullit'?

[@Darkknight39]

It feels weird to right off an idea as just right or left.

[@Katalmach]

You may produce a manufacturing economy, but an economy who serves who? Will it serve the interests of the American citizen or will it serve the interests of American corporations? They are not the same when the government is protectionism. Those that suffer most when prices rise as a result of protectionism is those that have the least money. The role of the economy is to serve individual interests, not the interests that the government selects.

[@Katalmach]

Then we can stop this debate right now, because all you do is ignore the arguments you don't like by returning to the basic 'but think of the poor American labourers'. Ignoring that unemployment went down during NAFTA, ignoring that outsourcing strengthens American companies, ignoring that tariffs often hurt the ones they seek to protect, ignoring that the state cannot accurately discriminate between beneficial tariffs and hurtful tariffs

[@Katalmach]

u srs. There are so many other factors that contribute to the balance of trade. How can you simply pick out one of them and proclaim: This one is to blame! How do you know? This is committing the Fallacy of the single cause. Secondly, why is having a large deficit a bad thing by itself? Combined with other things sure, but it is not the sole arbiter of things. It's actually got quite the relationship with economic growth.

[@Katalmach]

It is the natural result of government intervention that low skill jobs would become cost ineffective for companies in the US. The people in manufacturing are hurting alright. Automation hurt them too - yet everyone agrees this was for the better. Everyone profited in the long term from the increased efficiency. The same could be said of cheap labour.

[@sniggity]

Smart man.

[@emailjwr]

Wouldn't the answer to Sowell's point about tax evasion be to eliminate the tax loopholes? He's taking a very indirect solution route to that problem.

[@playlistsforme4551]

Don't you think it would be a lot more complicated to close the loopholes? What do you want the government to do, ban trading in different countries or ban moving your money to another country? Also, I would personally mention that the only justification for taxing the rich 80 percent of their income, would be that they aren't paying as much as they should. Why should I try to move up in life if all I get for my trouble is higher taxes? 30 percent of a million is still much more than 30 percent of 60,000 so why is the government entitled to 80 percent?

[@quantumfrost9467]

@@playlistsforme4551 exactly, its more fair that way

[@frenchonion4595]

Yes but the problem is there is ALWAYS loopholes the lawyers will find. Everything has to be textbook and if it's not in text or can be interpreted another way they will find a loophole. Sowell is just pointing that out.

[@PoppinSean]

Wealth will not trickle down from the government to the people, that's for sure.

[@JerryFlorez]

Any one knows the name of the song in the intro?

[@mindseye7909]

Song sounds like Take Five by Dave Brubeck but you might find a closer cover.

[@JerryFlorez]

@@mindseye7909 thank you! Found it, it's a Nate Leath cover

[@TheMrFanntastic]

When it costs more to produce something in America than it does somewhere else and then ship it here, that says a lot about our country. We have taxes and regulated our way out of competition. Do you know how much a pair of Levi Jeans cost that are made in American? $250. This is why business move overseas. Consumers complain about prices being to high, but yet do not want jobs to go overseas. The ignorant consumer is as much to blame as the business.

[@Thinkivist]

AOC should watch this.

[@taortlieb]

Sowell is a master of using one sided statistical information to support his vacuous arguments. For instance in as late as 2007 the top 20% earners paid 63% of the taxes. However, the top 20% earners also made 59% of the national earnings. Leaving out the second fact makes things sound a lot more uneven. In this particular interview he also talks about those earning over 100,000 in 1920 and compares them to those earning over 100,000 in 1970. Treating it like this is the same set of people. Sowell is the captain of the "figures don't lie but liars do figure" brigade.

[@ryangil23]

Yeah and we should abolish the welfare state and minimum wage apparently. Let’s just make the race to the bottom even worse than it already is.

[@taortlieb]

@Seldom Forever let’s deconstruct your objections. You state my statement about taxes is incoherent nonsense purportedly because I don’t have a plan to change it. Meanwhile all I was saying is that the methodology of using statistics to “prove” something requires a more balanced approach to be intellectually valid. I was presenting a methodological statement not a value statement about taxes. As for Krugman it appears to me that your issues are with Krugman not with my presentation of Krugman’s position. Did I misrepresent Krugman’s position? Also regarding the 1920 / 1970 issue I believe that it came directly from Sewell so your issue is with him. So all in all every one of your objections represents a misreading of my positions.

[@taortlieb]

@Seldom Forever There is NO consistent economic agreement that increasing taxes on the rich decreases revenue. I realize that using the word often provides plenty of wiggle room but my whole example of the taxes was associated with the idea that it is very easy to use statistics to prove a point if you disregard certain criteria. I also did not attack republicans in the Krugman youtube. You appear to have trouble understanding a youtube that summarizes Krugman's position with a youtube that might represent my position. Again I ask did i not represent Krugman's position correctly?

[@taortlieb]

@Seldom Forever The 59% is directly related to your answer. You note that he is pointing out an observation from an invariable set of data. I am saying that if you only provide the "top 20% pay 63% of the taxes" you have provided an observation of data but you have conveniently left out the part of the data set that indicates that the top 20% also made 59%. So your observation while statistically correct is rather biased by not considering all of the factors. So while the statistics are not lying the observation is disingenuous.

[@taortlieb]

@Seldom Forever Hi. It appears that we are talking cross purposes here. My example of the 63/59 tax situation was not related to the content of what Sowell is talking about in this video. The example was meant to be a metaphor for how people can use statistics to "prove" a point and yet when you look at the full picture the original position is not that meaningful. So in the case of my example if someone were to say that the top 20% paid 63% of the taxes and indicate that this is unfair it would sound reasonable. However if they were to add that the top 20% made 59% of the income their argument loses much of its value. This was meant as an example of using only select statistics to indicate a position. I was talking about the methodology of using statistics and the observations associated with those statistics. The example has nothing to do with Sowell's content in this video. If you wanted to relate it to the video you could look at the example of the 4 presidents and ask are there examples of presidents that cut taxes and had less revenue, you can ask the question about all of the factors that contribute to government revenue and see if cutting taxes is even a valid factor. It is certainly not the only factor so it is hard to really determine the net effect of cutting or increasing taxes.

[@Katalmach]

The consequences should the state get things wrong are horrible, and the state has failed in doing many things. You're right that almost every economy was historically built on protectionism, but that does not give a point of comparison from which to perceive the merits of protectionism because you would need to compare protectionism with free trade in the same period, and I don't think that ever existed.

[@brandonmccall6664]

Thomas sowell should have been the first black president

[@ThamizhanDaa1]

Wishful thinking

[@brianlaudrupchannel]

I'm confused by the video. So is it better that rich people pay lower tax?

[@Katalmach]

You would be effectively incentivizing large polluting corporations to take over the less polluting less profitable corporations.

[@Katalmach]

How would you even apply a tariff on pollution. Would you investigate each particular company, see how much it pollutes and put an appropriate tax? That seems impossible if you are not the government of China. Would you apply a tariff to the entirety of chinese imports? Then the first corporations that will die will be those with the lowest profits and those that sacrifice profit for respecting the environment have lower profits. They would be hit the hardest.

[@Katalmach]

So what is indeed hindering competition is the state, by enforcing environmental laws, not free trade. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. I agree that the US government is the problem, as for the latter statement, you can call me whatever you want, it matters not. Protectionism is an abandoned concept by almost all mainstream economists for good reason.

[@Katalmach]

The entirety of society has historically always improved its standard of living, including labourers. Just check how many more things an average worker has compared to a few decades ago. Many more people have TVs, computers, cellphones etc. It is the natural result of products becoming cheaper as a result of competition. Computers are hundred times more powerful and several times cheaper than 30 years ago BECAUSE of competition. Competition that you want to stifle with tariffs.

[@HansLemurson]

So...he's saying that rich people are just holding out on us because the taxes are too high to pay, and once they are reasonable the money will start flowing again?

[@1dk22]

HansLemurson He speaking to incentives. The higher your tax rate is for wealthy people, the more wealth will more out of the country to foreign tax havens, which can cause a decrease in revenue overall from taxation. If you lower the tax rate, less people will go to the trouble of hiding their money

[@michaelarena4086]

`Correct, it's called a tax holiday & our gov. passes a bill making the corporate rate of 35% drop to 5% & all that corporate wealth returns to the U.S. into corporate coffers NOT the economy. It is estimated that corporations are sitting on 4 Trillion dollars, in offshore business earning 12% to 24% oh yeah when was the last holiday?2004? Yeah, so it's time to crash the economy yet again.

[@Youngster543210]

1dk22 Not to mention it may cost more to pay off shore bankers and master accountants to safeguard your money than it would be to just pay the lower rate

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

This method doesn't work as well as you'd hope; Why would they move back when they can just pay no taxes at all? General Electric pays $0 in taxes.

[@playlistsforme4551]

@Aethion To stay competitive a business has to invest so the money would probably not stay in "corporate coffers". Also there is a steady stream of revenue so it costs money to keep outsourcing your money, not to mention protecting it. If the government makes it cost less to just pay taxes rich people would just do it. Also, the problem is not that rich people need an incentive to obey the law, it's that there are loopholes in the law allowing them to move their money to another country and pay taxes to that country. Do you want the government to make it illegal to use your money anywhere besides the United States? But then how would the country trade with other countries?

[@ryanreichert8562]

Everyone should learn economics you change a lot of your political beliefs you really learn that all it takes in politics is to just do good economic policy because over 70% of voters make voting decisions on how their wallet is doing rather than the politicians beliefs it happened with Reagan and FDR they made the economy explode and got voted back in and were praised and still are considered some of the best presidents ever

[@stevekap8]

I have a masters studying economics. I’ve written programs demonstrating game theory concepts. I’m a lefty.

[@istraight1]

Do I hold your opinion in the same light as Keynes + Sowell? Keynes was the greatest economist & for Reagan who hated government spending that man really practiced government spending.

[@TheMrFanntastic]

Its not just minimum wage, its all the policies that contribute to what we have today. Minimum wage creates structural unemployment. If we kept every job here in America, we would have no room to expand and people would have to except lower wages and less benefits because of the cost of our labor. This is a fact. It would be impossible to keep the jobs here and pay employees what they would expect. In order for US to grow, others must grow with us.

[@DOHC2L]

Only until a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is adopted.

[@Katalmach]

You are kidding yourself if you think a return to such a period would be good. No government can resist over time to the influences of corporations, for the greedy people that exist in the corporations you hate exist in government as well. Do you somehow imagine that the state is made out of incorruptible individuals that will somehow do exactly what is best for Americans? The biggest harm that corporations can do comes into existence only by the hand of government.

[@Eternaldream00]

Keldorn Firecam said it so it must be true. Sorry I had to :D. I agree with your observation.

[@Katalmach]

Then that is the option of lowering economic growth and subsequently lowering the rate at which the entirety of society improves its standards of living not to mention messing up with the incentives of the economy. If Apple would have less of a profit for example, it's business would expand more slowly and less jobs would be generated. Every intervention in the market has its cost. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. You might find that trade-off preferable, I do not.

[@Katalmach]

Even if he was as dishonest as you say, does that change the fact that tax cuts can increase tax revenue over several years? No, I don't think it does and I think we should be arguing that if you disagree instead of arguing about Sowell's character and motivations based on guesswork.

[@Katalmach]

In 2002 Bush enacted steel tariffs. He had been consistently pro free trade up to that point. But he needed to win the support of swing states that would of been in favour of the steel tariffs. I cannot know if Bush was honest or not in his intent, but undoubtedly politics gives the government an incentive to do what is popular, not what is good for the population. Who is to be the judge of who should be sacrificed when the interests of citizens are in conflict?

[@Katalmach]

Back to appeals to emotion are we? I said I was against state intervention and YOU YOURSELF SAID that they prevent the workers from associating into voluntary unions and thus skew the favour greatly into the hands of the employers. Being against state intervention is being for voluntary unions. The leaps of logic you take from being against state intervention to being for "working labour till they drop" are strenuous at best.