and liquidate all the assets of companies that would move to other countries... (this one i personnally disagree, but its just a random thought to throw out)
and... this part is authoritative (thought on the spot), place price cielings on commercial goods, and resource commodities... so it doesn't cost more than $300 million dollars to buy a ton of steel...
deconstruct the weapons industry and initiate regulations on permanant service industry, increase standards for people to enter public service and reduce corperate taxes on non-weapon, non-chemical, non-agriculture companies, tax all forms of personnel income transfers to all tax havens
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
On mosst points i dissagree with Dr. Miron, infact i think of him as one who is a incompetant fool to most of us in society, HOWEVER my opinion maybe, i do agree on one point, taxes should not be placed on to mainly income tax (41% of US gov budget) ... though if you place everything on consumption to the level we have now with income... no one is going to buy things... if you place a flat tax on consumption then goverment won't generate enough money...
I'm interested in researching more into shifting government funding from income-taxation to consumption-based taxes. Does anyone have sources for plans that include possible percentages to adequately fund current or near-current expenses?
So, if this proposal were to actually be courted, measured and implemented, what would happen to my father? My father is on disability, he is unable to work so what then?
@soundwaveblue People are not proposing to completely get rid of the entitlements, the government does owe people that money because they took it by force. Look at the wording, people are proposing to find ways to "trim the fat" and reduce the cost. Reducing the cost however cannot be done if the costs of regulation is still being tacked on, and the government continues to use that money for other things.
@UncaTuck Social Security is bankrupt. it's running on empty back ups. it's pretty much certain that social security will not exist in the coming decades. the current administration has stated this.
The FairTax HR 25 is a bill that is in Congress right now ready to be passed. It would completely abolish our current federal income tax code and replace it with a single consumption tax on new goods and services. Better yet, it includes a monthly rebate to off-set taxes paid on necessities up to the poverty level. Check it out at fairtax.org.
Excellent Video. Excellent Points. I hope Dr. Miron is taking the time to look into the FairTax Act of 2011 (currently HR-25 in the 112th Congress). The FairTax addresses point #3 to a "T".
The FairTax is a single-rate tax on consumption that eliminates Personal and Corporate Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, and 6 other forms of income tax. And because of its rebate mechanism for ALL legal US citizens, it is progressive and helps the lower, middle class, and poor the most.
@TXFairTaxer but if we take away the income taxes and put them toward the consumption taxes and for a flat rate too, everything would cost maybe 50% more then what it does now right? or any % based on what the rate is, over all i think its a good idea because 1. saying there are no taxes taken out of your pay check sounds good and 2 more money in the poket more to spend. but if it happened id be pissed if things jumped 50% in price like some car that was 20000 to 30000, thats rediculous.you know
@evanax19 I hear you. Look at it this way, if your boss gives you $100 extra dollars per month but then tells you that you have to spend $75 per month on new uniforms, you're still $25 ahead, right? In an oversimplified way, that is what the FairTax is doing. It is giving you back any income taxes you paid, and in return you will pay slightly higher prices; but you will still have more money left over. So, really, who cares if that car is more, you will have more money to pay for it.
What I hate is that our current system of taxation and regulation benefits those who can dodge them the best. Government regulation should be geared towards encouraging competition by lowering entry barriers and preventing collusion amongst top companies; instead with the repeal of Glass-Steagall we have so much integration that one company failing can bring down a whole economy. It's too hard for small business these days; the CEO of Home Depot said if he started his company in 2011 he'd fail.
@jobyweeks Exactly where in the constitution does it say what level of spending we should have? It says Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, but doen't say how big they should be. The size of goverment is not spelled out in the constitution.
if the flat tax rate could not be changed once it was set in place that would help. I think that if we did a 3% flat tax and kept it the same all the time and it could not go up and down it be a fair system. The government could only spend 1% of what they got in total on the flat tax. They would be required to balance the budjet
It's sad how these videos have such a small amount of views. These videos are so brilliant and explain the concepts that soooo many people can't comprehend or try to ignore.
We could eliminate ALL other taxes and have fair land use while still having a "big government" if you wish. You could also eliminate the government and redistribute the tax as a "citizen's dividend" because the basis of this idea is that the world is the collective property of all the world's citizens. All the positive effects would still occur but the idea of "landlord"-ism would be flipped on it's head. Everyone owns the land equally and everyone gets the "rent" equally, rich or poor.
Also, since "communities create wealth", the revenue from the tax would be based on how "wealthy" a community is. Good schools, low crime, and better roads (many many others too) would be the number one area for the government to spend their money on. Imagine all the public works programs that would be initiated if the government wanted to raise it's revenue. The only way, besides population growth, for revenue to be raised is if the government INVESTS in the community!
@ihatemoses No, communities do not create wealth, individuals do. Second, you are suggesting that those who create the most value ought to be punished for doing so more severely than others. Where do you think such a reward system will lead? 3 Governments don't have revenue, that is a euphemism for theft through taxes and fees. Governments do not invest in communities either. Govs are only interested in themselves.
Since there is a new burden on land owners, it would force unproductive land into productive land because no longer would it's lack of use in a boom economy make a profit for not using it. This would allow more people to buy land and use it. The increased usage would increase competition. This would lower the cost of goods. A new demand for labor would raise wages. The amount of money now not being shoved into land prices could be used to consume more goods and for investment in capital.
Finally we come to the solution. It's sadly a "tax" though. Lets imagine we repeal ALL taxes and allow REAL free trade from here on out but only implement a Land Value Tax. If we were to tax just the value of land and not improvements (which is a tax on work and wealth), we would lower the market price for land and keep them "naturally" low. Speculative markets regarding land would vanish because no longer could you wait and sell at a profit because of the new burden put onto land.
As the speculative market for land grows, banks extend their credit to catch some of the profit from it and eventually it bursts. Look at almost all previous boom and bust cycles. 2008 was a special circumstance because not only did the market create the bubble but the government decided to "regulate it" by making it even easier to speculate! It's important to understand that even without the government being involved it still would have happened but probably not as bad.
The real problem comes from land. Land use is the question that no one ever answers. As economies grow, market price of land grows with it. That may not seem like a bad thing and it may seem like an extremely logical conclusion but the effects are devastating. As land prices increase with economic growth, it creates large markets for land speculation. When land is purchased at the new price all goods and services will have to be produced at a higher cost and/or lower wages.
When I read these comments it makes me want to blow up all these schools because they have obviously taught you nothing. You people want bigger government because only a bigger government could fix the problems of the previous big government. Don't you people understand the fallacy of the argument? The world won't just be fixed if we tax income or tax consumption when everything we do is based on production and consumption. You people are voting for people to steal from you!!
And deregulation will stop the corporations from lobbying[buying] our politicians? Nope, it leads to MORE lobbying and MORE buying of politicians. Would you rather have politicians working for the top 1% or the bottom 99%?
@LordShandor You missed my point. The Social Security system is not a gift these people payed into it for years, and only receive a benefit based upon those contributions. You are obviously one of the stupid people who have been brainwashed to believe Medicare & Social Security are gifts given to anyone who asks. The Social Security system would have been alright if the money borrowed from it was repaid, but congress is trying to hide this so they don't have to repay their debt. F@#K the RICH !
@egcroan Social Security will fail; its only a matter of time. The worker-retiree ratio is constantly shrinking and in 2010, Social Security paid out more than it took in (causing a $49 billion deficit) for the first time since '83. This is a trend that undeniably WILL continue as the worker-retiree ratio shrinks further. Unless SS has unlimited amounts of money (which it doesn't), the system will eventually run completely dry. Even if money hadn't been "borrowed," the problem would STILL exist.
@ShamanMcLamie That's just Conservatard Propaganda that obviously you are too simple to figure out the real agenda is to privatize Social Security and Medicare so Wall Street can have everything. I suggest you read a book or two, and stop listening to Fox News !
@ShamanMcLamie BTW this hole Social Security argument is not going to impact me since I am old enough to be grandfathered into the existing system so I have no agenda that serves my own purposes.
Not bad, but taffiff China out of the market will light up US startups to meet the new demands. US jobs comming out our ears from TV startups to Detroit made dollar store crap.. OK 2 dollars. At least there are jobs.
It's simply not true that china takes our jobs. I'm sorry but it is not true. If it was true you could simply say look at what jobs have been outsourced and then subtract that from where employment was before they were outsourced. The numbers in your world don't add up. Also, if we were to end outsourcing, prices of goods would SKYROCKET. Poor people would have to spend even more money to buy goods and that is a very unfair "tax" just like a consumption tax is.
@ihatemoses Assuming that I said China took our jobs was a mistake. If however, their exports were largely manufactured here, the jobs problems would be solved. You are correct however in prediction big price increases (Like I already mentioned) What I did not mention is that the short term price increases tradeoff for long term jobs and economy boost is well worth the trade.
@DKPrepper I respectfully disagree that a protectionist policy will grow an economy faster than a policy of free trade. Long term increases in economic growth will not match the economic growth of a free trade country.
@DKPrepper I still think this is too simple a solution as it will be required to be done gradually, and only after American capacity is capable of supplying the demand.
@ihatemoses I agree with your points on the manufacturing side to a degree, but your comments about outsourcing are just bogus. Outsourcing is about corporate greed, and very little else. The decision was made to Customer Service was as important as say marketing so the jobs that Corporate America thought could be reduced to a script were outsourced. The language barrier , and the bad customer service that followed were just considered acceptable by some grossly overpaid executive.
@DKPrepper good in theory except it takes a lot longer than you think to start up a hardware business. The days of starting a Apple Computer int he garage is over, and hardware takes a lot longer to develop than software. The current example of an automotive design taking 5 years can't be applied to everything, but there are some things this would be a realistic time line for since factories would have to be permitted, and built from scratch.
stoping regulation is such a myth. The world Bank just came out with a detalied report that we are the 4th most business friendly nation in the world! besides coutnries like canda and germany which, according to some, are "overregulated" are seeing much faster and better growth than we have.
@grnbbllntrck Why would you believe the world bank? Germany is properois in spite of its regulations not because of them. The US was until war became its primary interest, however neither is relevant to this discussion. Government always over regulates everything and strangles whatever it touches.
@LordShandor Government over regulates si such a trite Big Business Chant that you should be careful of using. I am not saying we can't possibly get rid of some regulations that might be obsolete, but the EPA exists because corporate America in the past destroyed the environment in favor of profits. The 1999 repeal of a 1933 law The Glass-Steagall act was what allowed the banks to gamble with commercial deposits and use them in the highly speculative investment banking side of their businesses.
@egcroan Obsolete regs isn't the main issue, it is regs that hamper productivity without doing any real good. The EPA doesn't protect dick, they allow companies to pay piddly fines rather than fixing the problem. The FedGov doesn't have authority to make an EPA in the first place.
Gambling with deposits is a risk you take for doimg business with a bank, a bank isn't 100% secure, that is a myth. You don't want risk, put your money under your mattress.
@LordShandor You really are a very uneducated person aren't you or your a professional conservative blogger paid to spread these lies. The commercial banking industry is backed by the FDIC which after 1933 guaranteed your deposits were safe. This was done to get people to not keep their money at home in a mattress where it could be stolen very easily. This is not as you say a Myth. The Myth is your propaganda actually has any truth to it at all. The myth is that there is Free Market !
@LordShandor That is just a simpleton Libertarian , and Neo-Con anti regulation position that is purely propaganda. If you have safe automobiles thank the government as the industry add these expensive profit robbing safety measures to automobiles because of Free Market pressures. If you like clean air thank the EPA because Lead a Neuro-Toxin wasn't removed from gasoline even if the general population had very high blood level because of Free Market.
@egcroan WHat if people don't want to pay the extra money for safe automobiles? What if they only want a marginally safe one? Who is anyone to say they can't have it? The EPA doesn't keep the air clean, 1 GOV is the biggest polluter of all, 2 the largest corporate polluters simply pay the miniscule fines and continue polluting.
@LordShandor Propaganda is what you are shoveling as his facts about Germany & Canada might be inconvenient given you probably consider their strong unions environment socialist. The facts are Germany is got a much better employment picture even with strong "Job Killing" unions, because they have a better government position on such things as solar power.
He got one right, kill entitlements. Freezing regulation isn't enough, we need to turn back the dial and get rid of all this crap. Almost none of it is. Flat tax is stupid and hurts the bottom most of all. No we don't need to tax consumption, we need to STOP taxing, taxation is THEFT! Stop trying to justify thievery.
@LordShandor In the long run, I would agree with implementing your ideas; however, this, I think, is pragmatic, something that people, liberal and conservative, could agree with across the board.
@bucsfan14ce not intending to be rude but that is the dumbest idea ever. How do you expect ideological enemies to agree on anything? This can never happen and compromising is what got us here in the first place. We need to radically change the way people think about life and government.
@bucsfan14ce Liberal and conservatives ? where are the conservatives you speak of the republican party has been taken over by Neo-nazi's & The tea Part who lean toward the Libertarian Morons on one side, and Big Business War Mongering spend spend spend crowd on the other side. Where are these proverbial conservatives you speak of ?
@LordShandor Fuck you the so called entitlements are just conservative propaganda dreamed up by republicans to get out of their responsibility to repay the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust in the past. I am entitled to my Social Security because I paid into the trust for decades. Stop lying about Social Security you sorry MotherF@#ker
@egcroan I agree that the money should not have been looted, however you are overlooking the fact that Government had business creating SS in the first place and secondly, it was an inherently flawed system that would have collapsed eventually regardless because it was unsustainable. The looting just sped up the process.
70% of our GDP is consumption and you wanna tax it. Invest in more factory's? Many factory's are already shut down and we are not using the already existing capital we have. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash and they aren't using it to expand, hire or for R&D.
Taxing consumption instead of income with a flat tax of consumption ? Is this guy nuts ? It means that the richer you are, the less taxes you pay. This is a proposal for a complete and utter THEFT of most americans money to the profit of the wealthiest who do not invest it (except in exchange of huge interest rates) nor consume it.
Why do you not want to tackle the difficult things here. You yourself, Jeffery Miron, in another video have said that war expenditures are counter to producing wealth. We should be stopping the two Perma-Wars.
Why are you for a regressive flat sales tax? The ultra-rich don't consume, so the people that can afford to pay taxes won't be paying much at all. WIth a flat sales tax, the tax burden falls on the middle class and the poor. The poor must consume everything they make.
@LingamSpit ... exactly. A flat tax on consumption is extremely regressive since the poor must consume everything they make. The super rich on the other hand, relatively don't consume anything. They barely pay their flat tax on capital gains and on interest and dividends.
Jeffrey Miron, thanks for your insight - I feel you forgot to mention one obvious (and possibly *primary*) aspect of a flat consumption tax - its FAIR, i.e. results in everyone paying equally by the same measures.
@mattsamudio You have to be kidding. With a flat sales tax, retirees that earn nothing from jobs are now taxed again on their consumption. The ones most able to pay the tax - the already filthy rich don't consume, therefore won't be paying taxes. The poor on the other hand, must consume everything they make and would be taxed on everything. This is great for Wallstreet and horrible for Main Street. It's not fair by any means.
@milofonbil ... you're mixing "old" and "new" scenarios - those retirees benefit from untaxed interest growth on their retirement savings in the current ("old"), which is arguably unfair (i.e. why do they get that tax loophole ?). What's fair about consumption tax is that there's no loopholes. Of course the rich consume and thus pay the tax - what is there to do with money except spend it ? They stop getting investment-based loopholes. When they save, that's where loans come from.
@milofonbil ... those retirees currently benefit from untaxed interest growth on their retirement savings which is arguably unfair, i.e. why do they get that tax loophole ? What's fair about consumption tax is that there's no such loopholes for anyone (including the poor). Of course the rich consume and thus pay the tax - what is there to do with money except spend it ? They stop getting investment-based loopholes. When they save, that's where investment capital for others comes from.
@mattsamudio You are missing the point entirely. Government should not exist in the first place. No government no need for taxes. All government does is steal your money and waste it on bullshit like war and invasion of privacy. Tax loopholes are good, there aren't enough of them. How can it be bad for you to keep more of YOUR money? A consumption tax will just kick the shit out of those with little money. NO TAXES, period.
@LordShandor ... you are, of course, entirely correct. As far as "missing the point", I suppose I could be guilty of that, but I was attempting to stay within what seemed to me the "scope" of discussion (i.e. it wasn't a discussion ready for the anarcho-capitalist position). If there is to be a tax, it must be levied universally without preference. Once people grasp that and its implications, they then start to see how tax is wrong, even at its "best", as all initiation of force is.
@mattsamudio Any discussion of taxation must include the ancap position because taxation by coercion is immoral. When have people ever grasped anything as a whole?
1. The flat tax puts more pressure on lower income people. And the myth that the flat tax will grow the economy so much that it should cover up deficits is unrealistic.
2. Unregulation is wat got us in this mess in the first place, look at history and see how regulations hav been dismantled since the 1980's
3. This one actually has a point, Social Security and Medicare will peak during the next couple of years since Baby Bloomers r a disproportionally larger population than other generations
@wangsta25 for #2, he is saying not DEregulating but freezing regulations. The reason for this is that it would decrease uncertainty and channel more investment in business versus lobbyists, consultants, etc that are involved in regulation.
However, it is not solely deregulation that got us into this mess. Policies provided an incentive for risky behaviors and mortgages. The government was involved in making home-ownership more broadly available.
@LORDNARCISSUS Regulation is part of what caused this mess. We need to get rid of the Government monopoly, then this crap won't happen. Regulation inhibits creativity, productivity and the creation of wealth. Regulations never do what they are said to be intended to do.
@LORDNARCISSUS It is amazing how people still can't understand libertarian ism. He said freeze regulation and evaluate the regulations we do have, a huge fraction of which is not useful that is called de-regulation. De-regulation didn't cause any of this, it is regulation that allowed banks to give out those loans. In a real capitalistic free market society no bank would give people loans who can't pay them off.
You make some very compelling arguments. I only have a couple of concerns.
First, aren't flat taxes regressive because the poor spend a greater portion of their income on consumption than the rich? Aren't there long-term political stability implications for forcing the poor to shoulder the majority of tax burden?
Also, what do you think about exceptions for consumption tax for things like food, housing, water, healthcare, etc? Why should the government extract money from me because I must eat?
This is the way our country needs to go ppl need to start getting off their asses and get a job no more entitlements this country was founded by people who worked for everything and we must do the same. this ideaology along wit a president who knows wat he is doing is wat will restart our economy
@BandGZors "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
One third of the Federal budget is spent on Social Security and Medicare. We cannot continue that. A flat tax rate on people above the poverty level would keep us all at a even percentage compared to our income.Retirement accounts would be tax deferred. Corporations would have to pay U.S. taxes on profits made in other Countries. This would keep some jobs in this Country.Tax credits / breaks would be offered if Corporate growth (building, jobs, etc..) were done in this Country.
What regulations are hurting our economy? As for a flat consumption tax- it would essentially be a digressive income tax, meaning the poor spend a higher percent of their income on taxes because a higher percentage of their money goes towards consumption than the rich. Why am I not surprised that someone working for the Cato Institute, founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, is saying this?
1 Simplify the tax code 2 Simplify the tax code 3 Simplify the tax code. Let the people making and analyzing the tax code get real PRODUCTIVE jobs. Politicians raise taxes, and then make loopholes that offset any tax increase. The only result of this is the waste of time and money needed to support massive bureaucracy. NOT EVEN THE POLITICIANS WHO WRITE THE TAX CODE CAN DO THEIR OWN TAXES. Stop this!
Tax spending, not earning. Taxes are a revenue but also a penalty on what's being taxed. Don't punish good work that earns money; instead punish needless consumption that wastes money. That way, personal wealth would be encouraged to accumulate because folks would rather save than spend.
I agree with everything in this video more or less. I have one question. Would a tax on consumption not reduce demand in the market; thus indirectly harming productivity? If people are consuming less of the goods that companies are producing, then companies would not produce as much considering the low demand; would they not?
@NSO3451 they would be saving more then consuming which would allow they're wealth to potentially live on in other generations via wills etc. Thus the money would have more use for a longer period of time, the opposite is true today. People spend more then they save, not only that but spend more then they have (credit cards) thus there comes a point were most of them cannot spend at all due to poor money handling and the problem continues. Spending now is a quick fix, saving is long term.
@JJbones88 Hmmm.... I see. Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. Now I completely agree. I was also wondering; would it also be a reasonable strategy to replace the income tax with a flat national property tax? I was just wondering if there would be any major negative repercussions. It would seem to be more effective than an income tax to me, seeing as it would not interfere with the economy nearly as much. I suppose it would deter people from purchasing houses, but that's all I see.
@NSO3451 I believe he said eliminate income tax all together. So if the poorest in the country were no longer taxed from the money coming in, it wouldn't make consumption tax as bad on them. Plus it would encourage them to use that untaxed income wisely to deal with consumption tax, which inevitability could lead to them becoming wealthier and getting out of that 'poor' category.
@JJbones88 Well as it stands with the current tax system the poorest people generally do not pay income tax, so income tax being abolished would not help them, at least directly. You say that it would encourage them to spend their money more wisely, but with regards to something like food; what could be a wiser investment than food? Most poor people being unable to pay for food is not a matter of unwise expenditures, but merely that they lack the funds altogether.
@NSO3451 You should watch the other videos posted by LearnLiberty. One specifically called are the poor getting poorer? You will note that the people that are poor (for the most part) are teenagers and immigrants. Imagine the positive effect of having teenagers eat with their families again. Imagine the incentive to join the community for immigrants. American charities have never had a hard time keeping up with food needs, and certainly wouldn't with more discretionary money for donators.
@NativeNewMexican I actually have watched those videos. You're argument seems valid. I still think the system isn't perfect, but in comparison to the current system it's fantastic, so I would support a modified sales tax over an income tax. This is unrelated; but I think an other good policy would be to repeal all drug laws. I'm not a user myself, but it's wasted money, and a possible revenue stream if it were taxed.
@JJbones88 With respect to the desire for a simplified tax system, I feel that things like food should be exempt from this consumption tax. I would not wish to complicate the tax code further than that. When you tax something, you get less of it. If we tax food consumption, then it becomes less accessible to the poorest people. When price goes up, demand goes down, except food is a need, so demand can't go down. Instead it just makes food more difficult to get for those that already struggle.
@JJbones88 I also have an addendum. I understand the demand for a flat rate on consumption. But should some products not be exempt? I'm primarily thinking of food. It would seem to me that a tax on food would hurt the poorest of the country quite badly.
What cutting entitlements would ACTUALLY do is take away the safety net for those most vulnerable IN A TIME OF CRISIS, which is THE LAST thing we should do in these tough times, and make them even more vulnerable. They have less money, which means they'll pay less in taxes and have less ability to support themselves. They'll either have to take REALLY REALLY modest means to support themselves or find even shittier jobs in desperation, which helps NO ONE. except maybe business owners.
Libertarians and conservative economists need to stop thinking that gov't intervention can only have either a NEUTRAL or NEGATIVE impact on the economy. WHO SAYS IT CAN'T EVER BE POSITIVE?? Where's the economic law to support that nonsense? You ever think that maybe gov't programs like unemployment can COMPLEMENT growth? I mean, consider this. If you get laid off, but you have no income supports, and you weren't able to save up a lot, eventually you'll run out and have to either take a shitty
job or basically go broke. In desperation, you'll have to take a much shittier job than you would've otherwise had to take IF you had unemployment to keep your finances in check and help you pay bills. You can afford to look for a good job to replace your old one. Yeah, some dipshits claim it "encourages dependency", but that's baloney. America's replacement rate for UI is nowhere near the European levels, so no one could live entirely off UI for long.
Spending on things like job training and agencies that help locate workers to new jobs HELP speed up the process!
Do conservative and libertarian economists REALLY think that money all of a sudden gains magical anti-growth powers once it's in the hands of gov't? MONEY IS MONEY! What matters is how it's spent, not WHO spends it. A gov't monopoly and a private monopoly (privatization) that takes over those facilities are not all that diff. Private monopolies can be just as inefficient.
If gov't covers healthcare costs, people won't have to wait til the last minute to get necessary treatment (waiting just increases the cost) when they have to go to the ER for free care. They can get treated much sooner, which increases productivity, reduces lost work hours, and so on. PLUS, if the private sector DOESN'T have to cover healthcare costs, that means more profits for them, which would (theoretically) allow them to hire MORE people and perhaps even increase real pay.
This load of shit about how "big government" hinders economic growth is just that- a load of shit. It has NO empirical backing whatsoever. Besides, even IF there was a relationship, correlation is NOT causation. Remember when we had TREMENDOUS growth and productivity increases during the postwar era up until the 1970s?? But the middle class was STILL very prosperous, and gov't was fairly large with a good deal of programs. Reagan and Goldwater were totally wrong about this.
Btw, you DO realize that the "G" in the GDP equation stands for "government", right? So without GOVERNMENT spending on a number of projects and agencies, the economic growth would be EVEN LESS. Which means the private sector really isn't as strong and perfect as you think, now is it? Needs a little help from gov't every now and then?
Of course, you COULD argue that gov't is "crowding out", but that's bull. The private and public sectors' interests and wishes are quite diff., for starters.
Plus, even WITH social welfare programs, the amount of money that charities and charitable organizations take in and distribute to the poor is STILL about the same as a percentage of GDP as it was pre-New Deal or pre-Great Society. Taxes DO take money out of the economy, and a case COULD be made against very high taxes, but we haven't had high taxes in a LONG time, except maybe for the corporate tax. Then again, most corporations don't pay high effective tax rates, and some pay nothing.
Freezing new regulations MAY help grow the economy... at a cost. What if the regulation is something like Wall St. reform, totally necessary to prevent another crash and not allow these giant banking and financial institutions from going wild? What if it's a new safety regulation to help make sure businesses don't cut costs excessively and put an undue burden on miners? The disastrous potential results of NOT putting in those regulations can have JUST AS BIG a cost to the economy!
The idea that a regulation ONLY affects businesses or the organizations required to carry them out or abide by them is LUDICROUS! Many regulations, if not most, give the economy and society NET BENEFITS overall, not net costs. Looking at what it costs to businesses is looking at just one side of the equation. I mean, MAYBE there is a good number of regulations that DO put more cost on society and businesses than net benefit, but I doubt it's anywhere near 50% of regulations.
Let's look at those regulations which have overall negative impacts on society and see if we can perhaps streamline them or make them economically efficient while keeping the original spirit of the law. Doing away with a strong environmental or safety regulation that helps consumers and workers simply b/c it "costs too much" to Shell Oil makes no sense.
Plus, I'm sure there are at least a few studies showing that when organizations like the COC or certain corporations bitch and whine about "overregulation" or the costs of this or that proposed regulation, they just don't want the increased costs PERIOD, not that it actually increases costs "too much." In other words, they're likely overexaggerating the actual costs of many of these regulations. If it sounds farfetched, consider the fact that even VERY PROFITABLE companies still offshore jobs.
These are very profitable firms which DO NOT NEED to cut costs by desperate measures like that, yet they do it anyway. And WHO is to blame? Shareholders! The overreliance on shareholder capitalism is killing this nation. STAKEHOLDER capitalism makes more sense in the long run. Who gives a fuck about these damn shareholders? Do they even give you all that much in terms of additional money in the long run, esp. compared to sales revenues and other profit avenues?
Besides, you're gonna have to pay back A LOT of that money ANYWAY through dividends, right? Were companies REALLY so much less profitable and able to generate market power, relative to revenues and GDP, prior to the era of shareholder capitalism? I doubt it. Obviously they have increased in ABSOLUTE terms, but I think it just gives executives way too much of an excuse to cut costs above and beyond what's necessary to satisfy return on stock investment.
In any NORMAL organization or household, if you've got MILLIONS or even 100s of millions, let alone BILLIONS in profits (revenues MINUS costs, btw), you would say, "Well, we've got plenty, so there's no need to drastically cut costs", right? BUT NOOO... corporate America has this twisted view that they ALWAYS need to drastically cut costs, esp. to satisfy shareholders. It's a ridiculous race to the bottom. All to raise your stock price on Wall Street a little more. Fuck it
Corporate America is on overdrive when it comes to pursuit of profit in this day and age. We've seriously gotta moderate the trend. I've nothing against profit, but putting VERY HUGE profits above everything else, including your employees' welfare and rights, makes no sense to me. I mean, the head of Air Japan turned the co. around, but he only makes 90 grand a year! So obviously this crap about "huge salaries for execs are needed to attract talent" is bs.
Obviously those execs are just so extremely greedy and NEED very lavish, extravagant lifestyles that they won't accept the job without the HUGE compensation packages. They think of themselves as ABOVE the average worker. If they TRULY cared about the job and wanted to do a good job running the co., why need such a huge compensation? Couldn't 5 or 10 million do the job? 20 million? Getting overall compensation and severance packages of over 100 or 200 million seems excessive.
And yet... rather than CHALLENGE corporate America on these points, many libertarians and conservatives (and some free traders like even Paul Krugman) seem to just ACCEPT these changes and trends as 'necessary' and "economically logical." WHY??? Economists need to be a lot more skeptical of business instead of taking these things for granted. Skepticism of gov't economics is fine, but you ALSO need to hold big business accountable. It's not about private vs. public.
We KNOW mixed economies do best. It's about what the best COMBINATION of strong private and public sectors is. The public sector needs the private sector, but private needs public just as much. A state with a too-strong gov't can be quite totalitarian, but a state with too strong of a private sector can crush consumers and workers all the same. Neither should have excessive power; power should rest with THE PEOPLE, average Americans trying to get by.
Why is it OK for economists to constantly question what the gov't does with money and/or taxation, but it's TABOO to question what corporations and businesses do, as if EVERYTHING they do is logical and rational?? 100% of the time? REALLY?
Holy crap that was some long winded diatribe. I didn't realize how accurate the term holy crap was! Mixed economies are NOT the most successful and history has demostrated this. The less gov't crap there is, the more successful the country. Hell compare Sweden to Norway, South Korea to North Korea.
Exactly HOW does cutting entitlements "increase growth"? I've seen NO empirical evidence in any long-term example of a single gov't doing this that could actually prove what Jeff is saying. The Right LOVES to claim that "big gov't" is hindering growth, but that's nonsense! Besides, it's not THAT simplistic. It depends on WHAT parts of gov't you're referring to. You can't just claim that because gov't spends a lot, somehow it's "reducing growth." That's total bull.
@whoo689 Let's see, if I am good at making products that people want to buy, I get rich. If my company is good at making those products it makes profits. So, the more money I and my company make, the greater benefit I have provided to the society and you think that taking the money that I made from me and giving it to someone who has proven incapable of doing anything anywhere near as productive wouldn't hurt growth?
I dont agree that we should tax everything the same. we should tax more goods that create externalities like gasoline. when you pollute more, you should pay more. for the rest, i'm a libertarian and totally agree with him.
Well growing the economy would mean eliminating debt obviously. And the only President to ever ever eliminate national debt was Andrew Jackson. How did he do that, he killed the banks. Little did he know they rose back up. We have to kill the banks. Just by eliminating that problem we would start to grow.
Why hasn't this video been seen by millions? How did this fellow get into Harvard? How does he KEEP his job at Harvard if he talks like this? That's OK, I guess, they'll take him at the University of Chicago....
What about cutting out all the money that goes to the military-industrial complex Jeff?
mojorhythm 1 week ago
and liquidate all the assets of companies that would move to other countries... (this one i personnally disagree, but its just a random thought to throw out)
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
and... this part is authoritative (thought on the spot), place price cielings on commercial goods, and resource commodities... so it doesn't cost more than $300 million dollars to buy a ton of steel...
deconstruct the weapons industry and initiate regulations on permanant service industry, increase standards for people to enter public service and reduce corperate taxes on non-weapon, non-chemical, non-agriculture companies, tax all forms of personnel income transfers to all tax havens
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
to maintain a powerful administration/bureaucracy costs a LOT of money... no money no power... no income no power...
So I propose to place a extend the progressive tax levels/divide it to all industry and sectors of national income, constitutionally restrict administrative costs, reduce personel income tax... so "middle class" citizens earning $70.000-150,000 don't have to spend pay %60 of their income to taxes and local fees.
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
On mosst points i dissagree with Dr. Miron, infact i think of him as one who is a incompetant fool to most of us in society, HOWEVER my opinion maybe, i do agree on one point, taxes should not be placed on to mainly income tax (41% of US gov budget) ... though if you place everything on consumption to the level we have now with income... no one is going to buy things... if you place a flat tax on consumption then goverment won't generate enough money...
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
@ThnkIaA
"though if you place everything on consumption to the level we have now with income... no one is going to buy things.."
They will too, if you make it gradual enough.
There already exists a thing called "sales tax", that is in fact a tax on consumption.
Put taxes their, less people will be able to cheat, and planning your taxes becomes a whole lot simpler.
Alaskaslim 5 days ago
I'm interested in researching more into shifting government funding from income-taxation to consumption-based taxes. Does anyone have sources for plans that include possible percentages to adequately fund current or near-current expenses?
audiowiz 2 weeks ago
let's this guy run president for 4 years. We'll see.
whomybuddy 1 month ago
Value added tax! VATs for all!
Greendogo 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
So, if this proposal were to actually be courted, measured and implemented, what would happen to my father? My father is on disability, he is unable to work so what then?
soundwaveblue 1 month ago
@soundwaveblue People are not proposing to completely get rid of the entitlements, the government does owe people that money because they took it by force. Look at the wording, people are proposing to find ways to "trim the fat" and reduce the cost. Reducing the cost however cannot be done if the costs of regulation is still being tacked on, and the government continues to use that money for other things.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
ron paul 2012
battlefieldtalk 1 month ago
that guy blinks a lot
Vogopolis 1 month ago
Good info but what do you suggest for all the people on Social Security, starvation?
UncaTuck 1 month ago
@UncaTuck Social Security is bankrupt. it's running on empty back ups. it's pretty much certain that social security will not exist in the coming decades. the current administration has stated this.
the public sector's coffers are empty.
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
The FairTax HR 25 is a bill that is in Congress right now ready to be passed. It would completely abolish our current federal income tax code and replace it with a single consumption tax on new goods and services. Better yet, it includes a monthly rebate to off-set taxes paid on necessities up to the poverty level. Check it out at fairtax.org.
llcoolray3000 1 month ago
Excellent Video. Excellent Points. I hope Dr. Miron is taking the time to look into the FairTax Act of 2011 (currently HR-25 in the 112th Congress). The FairTax addresses point #3 to a "T".
The FairTax is a single-rate tax on consumption that eliminates Personal and Corporate Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, and 6 other forms of income tax. And because of its rebate mechanism for ALL legal US citizens, it is progressive and helps the lower, middle class, and poor the most.
FairTax needs your help!
TXFairTaxer 1 month ago 11
@TXFairTaxer but if we take away the income taxes and put them toward the consumption taxes and for a flat rate too, everything would cost maybe 50% more then what it does now right? or any % based on what the rate is, over all i think its a good idea because 1. saying there are no taxes taken out of your pay check sounds good and 2 more money in the poket more to spend. but if it happened id be pissed if things jumped 50% in price like some car that was 20000 to 30000, thats rediculous.you know
evanax19 2 weeks ago
@evanax19 I hear you. Look at it this way, if your boss gives you $100 extra dollars per month but then tells you that you have to spend $75 per month on new uniforms, you're still $25 ahead, right? In an oversimplified way, that is what the FairTax is doing. It is giving you back any income taxes you paid, and in return you will pay slightly higher prices; but you will still have more money left over. So, really, who cares if that car is more, you will have more money to pay for it.
TXFairTaxer 2 weeks ago
What I hate is that our current system of taxation and regulation benefits those who can dodge them the best. Government regulation should be geared towards encouraging competition by lowering entry barriers and preventing collusion amongst top companies; instead with the repeal of Glass-Steagall we have so much integration that one company failing can bring down a whole economy. It's too hard for small business these days; the CEO of Home Depot said if he started his company in 2011 he'd fail.
shutyamouf2 1 month ago
The country ran fine without a sales tax or an income tax. If we cut spending down to a constitutional level we wouldn't need either.
jobyweeks 2 months ago 9
@jobyweeks Exactly where in the constitution does it say what level of spending we should have? It says Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, but doen't say how big they should be. The size of goverment is not spelled out in the constitution.
therichardking4242 2 weeks ago
@therichardking4242 We could start by fighting wars that are declared by congress as the constitution requires.
jobyweeks 2 weeks ago
if the flat tax rate could not be changed once it was set in place that would help. I think that if we did a 3% flat tax and kept it the same all the time and it could not go up and down it be a fair system. The government could only spend 1% of what they got in total on the flat tax. They would be required to balance the budjet
james64468 2 months ago
It's sad how these videos have such a small amount of views. These videos are so brilliant and explain the concepts that soooo many people can't comprehend or try to ignore.
vanovermeer 2 months ago
hahahhahahhahah none of these will come close to growing the economy.
Burns12009 2 months ago
We could eliminate ALL other taxes and have fair land use while still having a "big government" if you wish. You could also eliminate the government and redistribute the tax as a "citizen's dividend" because the basis of this idea is that the world is the collective property of all the world's citizens. All the positive effects would still occur but the idea of "landlord"-ism would be flipped on it's head. Everyone owns the land equally and everyone gets the "rent" equally, rich or poor.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
@ihatemoses AKA socialism, aka complete economic failure everywhere it has been put into place. Socialism doesn't work.
LordShandor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ihatemoses AKA socialism, aka complete economic failure everywhere it has been put into place. Socialism doesn't work.
LordShandor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ihatemoses AKA socialism, aka complete economic failure everywhere it has been put into place. Socialism doesn't work.
LordShandor 2 months ago
Also, since "communities create wealth", the revenue from the tax would be based on how "wealthy" a community is. Good schools, low crime, and better roads (many many others too) would be the number one area for the government to spend their money on. Imagine all the public works programs that would be initiated if the government wanted to raise it's revenue. The only way, besides population growth, for revenue to be raised is if the government INVESTS in the community!
ihatemoses 2 months ago
@ihatemoses No, communities do not create wealth, individuals do. Second, you are suggesting that those who create the most value ought to be punished for doing so more severely than others. Where do you think such a reward system will lead? 3 Governments don't have revenue, that is a euphemism for theft through taxes and fees. Governments do not invest in communities either. Govs are only interested in themselves.
LordShandor 2 months ago
Since there is a new burden on land owners, it would force unproductive land into productive land because no longer would it's lack of use in a boom economy make a profit for not using it. This would allow more people to buy land and use it. The increased usage would increase competition. This would lower the cost of goods. A new demand for labor would raise wages. The amount of money now not being shoved into land prices could be used to consume more goods and for investment in capital.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
Finally we come to the solution. It's sadly a "tax" though. Lets imagine we repeal ALL taxes and allow REAL free trade from here on out but only implement a Land Value Tax. If we were to tax just the value of land and not improvements (which is a tax on work and wealth), we would lower the market price for land and keep them "naturally" low. Speculative markets regarding land would vanish because no longer could you wait and sell at a profit because of the new burden put onto land.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
As the speculative market for land grows, banks extend their credit to catch some of the profit from it and eventually it bursts. Look at almost all previous boom and bust cycles. 2008 was a special circumstance because not only did the market create the bubble but the government decided to "regulate it" by making it even easier to speculate! It's important to understand that even without the government being involved it still would have happened but probably not as bad.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
The real problem comes from land. Land use is the question that no one ever answers. As economies grow, market price of land grows with it. That may not seem like a bad thing and it may seem like an extremely logical conclusion but the effects are devastating. As land prices increase with economic growth, it creates large markets for land speculation. When land is purchased at the new price all goods and services will have to be produced at a higher cost and/or lower wages.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
When I read these comments it makes me want to blow up all these schools because they have obviously taught you nothing. You people want bigger government because only a bigger government could fix the problems of the previous big government. Don't you people understand the fallacy of the argument? The world won't just be fixed if we tax income or tax consumption when everything we do is based on production and consumption. You people are voting for people to steal from you!!
ihatemoses 2 months ago
No, no and no.
local2458 3 months ago
And deregulation will stop the corporations from lobbying[buying] our politicians? Nope, it leads to MORE lobbying and MORE buying of politicians. Would you rather have politicians working for the top 1% or the bottom 99%?
IFUCKINGLOVEYOUTOO 3 months ago
@IFUCKINGLOVEYOUTOO Neither, they should be working for the best interests of liberty for all.
LordShandor 2 months ago
F#$k Him, and anybody who believes this isn't just Propaganda ! This is such rich People Policies !! Hello !! he is from Harvard !!
This is just Republican Talking points given them by the rich ruling class, and these policies would destroy the middle class.
Cut entitlements = fuck over the poor
Freeze regulations + We already deregulated so leave it alone
Taxing consumption will just place the burden disproportionately on the middle class who spend a higher [percentage of their paychecks.
egcroan 3 months ago
@egcroan Are you under the impression that being poor makes other inherently owe you something? Nobody is entitled to anything but to be left alone.
LordShandor 3 months ago
@LordShandor You missed my point. The Social Security system is not a gift these people payed into it for years, and only receive a benefit based upon those contributions. You are obviously one of the stupid people who have been brainwashed to believe Medicare & Social Security are gifts given to anyone who asks. The Social Security system would have been alright if the money borrowed from it was repaid, but congress is trying to hide this so they don't have to repay their debt. F@#K the RICH !
egcroan 2 months ago
@egcroan Social Security will fail; its only a matter of time. The worker-retiree ratio is constantly shrinking and in 2010, Social Security paid out more than it took in (causing a $49 billion deficit) for the first time since '83. This is a trend that undeniably WILL continue as the worker-retiree ratio shrinks further. Unless SS has unlimited amounts of money (which it doesn't), the system will eventually run completely dry. Even if money hadn't been "borrowed," the problem would STILL exist.
Cosmo1093 2 months ago
@egcroan
Don't cut entitlements = fuck over the poor's and everyone else's children.
ShamanMcLamie 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie That's just Conservatard Propaganda that obviously you are too simple to figure out the real agenda is to privatize Social Security and Medicare so Wall Street can have everything. I suggest you read a book or two, and stop listening to Fox News !
egcroan 2 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie BTW this hole Social Security argument is not going to impact me since I am old enough to be grandfathered into the existing system so I have no agenda that serves my own purposes.
egcroan 2 months ago
Not bad, but taffiff China out of the market will light up US startups to meet the new demands. US jobs comming out our ears from TV startups to Detroit made dollar store crap.. OK 2 dollars. At least there are jobs.
DKPrepper 3 months ago
@DKPrepper
It's simply not true that china takes our jobs. I'm sorry but it is not true. If it was true you could simply say look at what jobs have been outsourced and then subtract that from where employment was before they were outsourced. The numbers in your world don't add up. Also, if we were to end outsourcing, prices of goods would SKYROCKET. Poor people would have to spend even more money to buy goods and that is a very unfair "tax" just like a consumption tax is.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
@ihatemoses Assuming that I said China took our jobs was a mistake. If however, their exports were largely manufactured here, the jobs problems would be solved. You are correct however in prediction big price increases (Like I already mentioned) What I did not mention is that the short term price increases tradeoff for long term jobs and economy boost is well worth the trade.
DKPrepper 2 months ago
@DKPrepper I respectfully disagree that a protectionist policy will grow an economy faster than a policy of free trade. Long term increases in economic growth will not match the economic growth of a free trade country.
ihatemoses 2 months ago
@DKPrepper I still think this is too simple a solution as it will be required to be done gradually, and only after American capacity is capable of supplying the demand.
egcroan 2 months ago
@ihatemoses I agree with your points on the manufacturing side to a degree, but your comments about outsourcing are just bogus. Outsourcing is about corporate greed, and very little else. The decision was made to Customer Service was as important as say marketing so the jobs that Corporate America thought could be reduced to a script were outsourced. The language barrier , and the bad customer service that followed were just considered acceptable by some grossly overpaid executive.
egcroan 2 months ago
@DKPrepper good in theory except it takes a lot longer than you think to start up a hardware business. The days of starting a Apple Computer int he garage is over, and hardware takes a lot longer to develop than software. The current example of an automotive design taking 5 years can't be applied to everything, but there are some things this would be a realistic time line for since factories would have to be permitted, and built from scratch.
egcroan 2 months ago
stoping regulation is such a myth. The world Bank just came out with a detalied report that we are the 4th most business friendly nation in the world! besides coutnries like canda and germany which, according to some, are "overregulated" are seeing much faster and better growth than we have.
grnbbllntrck 3 months ago
@grnbbllntrck Does the word 'propaganda' mean anything to you? BTW, I have a bridge for sale, unbeatable price.
LordShandor 3 months ago
@LordShandor by propaganda i sure hope you are meaning this video.
grnbbllntrck 3 months ago
@grnbbllntrck Why would you believe the world bank? Germany is properois in spite of its regulations not because of them. The US was until war became its primary interest, however neither is relevant to this discussion. Government always over regulates everything and strangles whatever it touches.
LordShandor 3 months ago
@LordShandor Government over regulates si such a trite Big Business Chant that you should be careful of using. I am not saying we can't possibly get rid of some regulations that might be obsolete, but the EPA exists because corporate America in the past destroyed the environment in favor of profits. The 1999 repeal of a 1933 law The Glass-Steagall act was what allowed the banks to gamble with commercial deposits and use them in the highly speculative investment banking side of their businesses.
egcroan 3 months ago
@egcroan Obsolete regs isn't the main issue, it is regs that hamper productivity without doing any real good. The EPA doesn't protect dick, they allow companies to pay piddly fines rather than fixing the problem. The FedGov doesn't have authority to make an EPA in the first place.
Gambling with deposits is a risk you take for doimg business with a bank, a bank isn't 100% secure, that is a myth. You don't want risk, put your money under your mattress.
LordShandor 3 months ago
@LordShandor You really are a very uneducated person aren't you or your a professional conservative blogger paid to spread these lies. The commercial banking industry is backed by the FDIC which after 1933 guaranteed your deposits were safe. This was done to get people to not keep their money at home in a mattress where it could be stolen very easily. This is not as you say a Myth. The Myth is your propaganda actually has any truth to it at all. The myth is that there is Free Market !
egcroan 2 months ago
@egcroan Of course there isn't a free market. THAT is the whole problem with the economy today and throughout history. FDIC is a scam BTW.
LordShandor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egcroan Of course there isn't a free market. THAT is the whole problem with the economy today and throughout history. FDIC is a scam BTW.
LordShandor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egcroan Of course there isn't a free market. THAT is the whole problem with the economy today and throughout history. FDIC is a scam BTW.
LordShandor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egcroan @egcroan Of course there isn't a free market. THAT is the whole problem with the economy today and throughout history. FDIC is a scam BTW.
LordShandor 2 months ago
@LordShandor That is just a simpleton Libertarian , and Neo-Con anti regulation position that is purely propaganda. If you have safe automobiles thank the government as the industry add these expensive profit robbing safety measures to automobiles because of Free Market pressures. If you like clean air thank the EPA because Lead a Neuro-Toxin wasn't removed from gasoline even if the general population had very high blood level because of Free Market.
egcroan 2 months ago
@egcroan WHat if people don't want to pay the extra money for safe automobiles? What if they only want a marginally safe one? Who is anyone to say they can't have it? The EPA doesn't keep the air clean, 1 GOV is the biggest polluter of all, 2 the largest corporate polluters simply pay the miniscule fines and continue polluting.
LordShandor 2 months ago
@LordShandor Propaganda is what you are shoveling as his facts about Germany & Canada might be inconvenient given you probably consider their strong unions environment socialist. The facts are Germany is got a much better employment picture even with strong "Job Killing" unions, because they have a better government position on such things as solar power.
egcroan 2 months ago
He got one right, kill entitlements. Freezing regulation isn't enough, we need to turn back the dial and get rid of all this crap. Almost none of it is. Flat tax is stupid and hurts the bottom most of all. No we don't need to tax consumption, we need to STOP taxing, taxation is THEFT! Stop trying to justify thievery.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor In the long run, I would agree with implementing your ideas; however, this, I think, is pragmatic, something that people, liberal and conservative, could agree with across the board.
bucsfan14ce 3 months ago
@bucsfan14ce not intending to be rude but that is the dumbest idea ever. How do you expect ideological enemies to agree on anything? This can never happen and compromising is what got us here in the first place. We need to radically change the way people think about life and government.
LordShandor 3 months ago
@bucsfan14ce Liberal and conservatives ? where are the conservatives you speak of the republican party has been taken over by Neo-nazi's & The tea Part who lean toward the Libertarian Morons on one side, and Big Business War Mongering spend spend spend crowd on the other side. Where are these proverbial conservatives you speak of ?
egcroan 3 months ago
@LordShandor Fuck you the so called entitlements are just conservative propaganda dreamed up by republicans to get out of their responsibility to repay the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust in the past. I am entitled to my Social Security because I paid into the trust for decades. Stop lying about Social Security you sorry MotherF@#ker
egcroan 2 months ago
@egcroan I agree that the money should not have been looted, however you are overlooking the fact that Government had business creating SS in the first place and secondly, it was an inherently flawed system that would have collapsed eventually regardless because it was unsustainable. The looting just sped up the process.
LordShandor 2 months ago
70% of our GDP is consumption and you wanna tax it. Invest in more factory's? Many factory's are already shut down and we are not using the already existing capital we have. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash and they aren't using it to expand, hire or for R&D.
JRD123456 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Taxing consumption instead of income with a flat tax of consumption ? Is this guy nuts ? It means that the richer you are, the less taxes you pay. This is a proposal for a complete and utter THEFT of most americans money to the profit of the wealthiest who do not invest it (except in exchange of huge interest rates) nor consume it.
laurentmandement 5 months ago
Why do you not want to tackle the difficult things here. You yourself, Jeffery Miron, in another video have said that war expenditures are counter to producing wealth. We should be stopping the two Perma-Wars.
Why are you for a regressive flat sales tax? The ultra-rich don't consume, so the people that can afford to pay taxes won't be paying much at all. WIth a flat sales tax, the tax burden falls on the middle class and the poor. The poor must consume everything they make.
milofonbil 5 months ago
Flat tax only benefits the rich
SgtRedstar 5 months ago
Corporate propaganda.
michaelwuzthere 5 months ago
He needs to prove that a flat tax isn't regressive. Psst.....he can't prove it and do you know why? A flat tax IS regressive.
LingamSpit 6 months ago
@LingamSpit ... exactly. A flat tax on consumption is extremely regressive since the poor must consume everything they make. The super rich on the other hand, relatively don't consume anything. They barely pay their flat tax on capital gains and on interest and dividends.
milofonbil 5 months ago
Jeffrey Miron, thanks for your insight - I feel you forgot to mention one obvious (and possibly *primary*) aspect of a flat consumption tax - its FAIR, i.e. results in everyone paying equally by the same measures.
mattsamudio 6 months ago
@mattsamudio You have to be kidding. With a flat sales tax, retirees that earn nothing from jobs are now taxed again on their consumption. The ones most able to pay the tax - the already filthy rich don't consume, therefore won't be paying taxes. The poor on the other hand, must consume everything they make and would be taxed on everything. This is great for Wallstreet and horrible for Main Street. It's not fair by any means.
milofonbil 5 months ago
@milofonbil ... you're mixing "old" and "new" scenarios - those retirees benefit from untaxed interest growth on their retirement savings in the current ("old"), which is arguably unfair (i.e. why do they get that tax loophole ?). What's fair about consumption tax is that there's no loopholes. Of course the rich consume and thus pay the tax - what is there to do with money except spend it ? They stop getting investment-based loopholes. When they save, that's where loans come from.
mattsamudio 5 months ago
@milofonbil ... those retirees currently benefit from untaxed interest growth on their retirement savings which is arguably unfair, i.e. why do they get that tax loophole ? What's fair about consumption tax is that there's no such loopholes for anyone (including the poor). Of course the rich consume and thus pay the tax - what is there to do with money except spend it ? They stop getting investment-based loopholes. When they save, that's where investment capital for others comes from.
mattsamudio 5 months ago
@mattsamudio You are missing the point entirely. Government should not exist in the first place. No government no need for taxes. All government does is steal your money and waste it on bullshit like war and invasion of privacy. Tax loopholes are good, there aren't enough of them. How can it be bad for you to keep more of YOUR money? A consumption tax will just kick the shit out of those with little money. NO TAXES, period.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor ... you are, of course, entirely correct. As far as "missing the point", I suppose I could be guilty of that, but I was attempting to stay within what seemed to me the "scope" of discussion (i.e. it wasn't a discussion ready for the anarcho-capitalist position). If there is to be a tax, it must be levied universally without preference. Once people grasp that and its implications, they then start to see how tax is wrong, even at its "best", as all initiation of force is.
mattsamudio 4 months ago
@mattsamudio Any discussion of taxation must include the ancap position because taxation by coercion is immoral. When have people ever grasped anything as a whole?
LordShandor 3 months ago
@LordShandor Blah Blah Blah just the position of the United States of Corporate America.
egcroan 3 months ago
who is paying Miron to say this garbage??
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 6 months ago
1. The flat tax puts more pressure on lower income people. And the myth that the flat tax will grow the economy so much that it should cover up deficits is unrealistic.
2. Unregulation is wat got us in this mess in the first place, look at history and see how regulations hav been dismantled since the 1980's
3. This one actually has a point, Social Security and Medicare will peak during the next couple of years since Baby Bloomers r a disproportionally larger population than other generations
wangsta25 6 months ago
@wangsta25 for #2, he is saying not DEregulating but freezing regulations. The reason for this is that it would decrease uncertainty and channel more investment in business versus lobbyists, consultants, etc that are involved in regulation.
However, it is not solely deregulation that got us into this mess. Policies provided an incentive for risky behaviors and mortgages. The government was involved in making home-ownership more broadly available.
Yes, we need regulation, but not any kind
LORDNARCISSUS 6 months ago 8
@LORDNARCISSUS Regulation is part of what caused this mess. We need to get rid of the Government monopoly, then this crap won't happen. Regulation inhibits creativity, productivity and the creation of wealth. Regulations never do what they are said to be intended to do.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LORDNARCISSUS It is amazing how people still can't understand libertarian ism. He said freeze regulation and evaluate the regulations we do have, a huge fraction of which is not useful that is called de-regulation. De-regulation didn't cause any of this, it is regulation that allowed banks to give out those loans. In a real capitalistic free market society no bank would give people loans who can't pay them off.
Arcturistheballer 1 month ago
You make some very compelling arguments. I only have a couple of concerns.
First, aren't flat taxes regressive because the poor spend a greater portion of their income on consumption than the rich? Aren't there long-term political stability implications for forcing the poor to shoulder the majority of tax burden?
Also, what do you think about exceptions for consumption tax for things like food, housing, water, healthcare, etc? Why should the government extract money from me because I must eat?
KoroTrizuma 6 months ago
This is the way our country needs to go ppl need to start getting off their asses and get a job no more entitlements this country was founded by people who worked for everything and we must do the same. this ideaology along wit a president who knows wat he is doing is wat will restart our economy
nickd014 6 months ago
idiot! LOL
76Insurrection 6 months ago
For a Harvard PhD, he's an idot
xx9933yyzz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xx9933yyzz why do you say that?
darris321 6 months ago
@xx9933yyzz Good Argument! Not.
BandGZors 6 months ago
@BandGZors, Neither is yours
xx9933yyzz 6 months ago
@xx9933yyzz Mine was not an argument, but a sarcastic statement. No go masturbate to an image of Michael Moore.
BandGZors 2 months ago
@BandGZors Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I'll do just that once you find the cure for cancer. Good day.
xx9933yyzz 2 months ago
The businesses he says are being crushed are not small businesses.
Social Security has a trillion dollar surplus.
He may be the only economist in favor of a flat tax. His reason is because its simple? Ridiculous and absurd. A flat tax will cut revenues.
He wants to cut programs that help every day people in order to "grow the economy" for big business. Be careful America, this man is not your friend.
pan488 6 months ago
@pan488 what about a national sales tax which didn't tax food?
darris321 6 months ago
@pan488 The Fed is not my friend. Comrade Obama giving the money I MAKE to people who do not work is what we ought be careful of.
BandGZors 6 months ago
@BandGZors "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
— John Steinbeck
pan488 6 months ago
kochsucker
whbon73 6 months ago
One third of the Federal budget is spent on Social Security and Medicare. We cannot continue that. A flat tax rate on people above the poverty level would keep us all at a even percentage compared to our income.Retirement accounts would be tax deferred. Corporations would have to pay U.S. taxes on profits made in other Countries. This would keep some jobs in this Country.Tax credits / breaks would be offered if Corporate growth (building, jobs, etc..) were done in this Country.
srich49 6 months ago
What regulations are hurting our economy? As for a flat consumption tax- it would essentially be a digressive income tax, meaning the poor spend a higher percent of their income on taxes because a higher percentage of their money goes towards consumption than the rich. Why am I not surprised that someone working for the Cato Institute, founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, is saying this?
1thruZ 6 months ago
why does a channel that talks about how colleges are scams have a Harvard Professor talk about economics?
esperanza31288 6 months ago
@esperanza31288 because they said most colleges are becoming scams, but obviously the Ivy's are well insulated from these effects.
charleshoskinson 6 months ago
shit. this man has my idea.
bprins20 6 months ago
I think the EPA needs to put more regulations on big oil, coal, gas, etc. because the current system is destroying the environment
nickitheninja5 7 months ago
@nickitheninja5 The EPA is the problem in the first place.
TheManiacalSatanist6 6 months ago
1 Simplify the tax code 2 Simplify the tax code 3 Simplify the tax code. Let the people making and analyzing the tax code get real PRODUCTIVE jobs. Politicians raise taxes, and then make loopholes that offset any tax increase. The only result of this is the waste of time and money needed to support massive bureaucracy. NOT EVEN THE POLITICIANS WHO WRITE THE TAX CODE CAN DO THEIR OWN TAXES. Stop this!
Thatmakessense356 7 months ago 11
@Thatmakessense356 No, get RID of the tax code. Get rid of taxes. Get rid of Government.
LordShandor 4 months ago
Tax spending, not earning. Taxes are a revenue but also a penalty on what's being taxed. Don't punish good work that earns money; instead punish needless consumption that wastes money. That way, personal wealth would be encouraged to accumulate because folks would rather save than spend.
cinndave 7 months ago
I agree with everything in this video more or less. I have one question. Would a tax on consumption not reduce demand in the market; thus indirectly harming productivity? If people are consuming less of the goods that companies are producing, then companies would not produce as much considering the low demand; would they not?
NSO3451 8 months ago
@NSO3451 they would be saving more then consuming which would allow they're wealth to potentially live on in other generations via wills etc. Thus the money would have more use for a longer period of time, the opposite is true today. People spend more then they save, not only that but spend more then they have (credit cards) thus there comes a point were most of them cannot spend at all due to poor money handling and the problem continues. Spending now is a quick fix, saving is long term.
JJbones88 7 months ago
@JJbones88 Hmmm.... I see. Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense. Now I completely agree. I was also wondering; would it also be a reasonable strategy to replace the income tax with a flat national property tax? I was just wondering if there would be any major negative repercussions. It would seem to be more effective than an income tax to me, seeing as it would not interfere with the economy nearly as much. I suppose it would deter people from purchasing houses, but that's all I see.
NSO3451 7 months ago
@NSO3451 I believe he said eliminate income tax all together. So if the poorest in the country were no longer taxed from the money coming in, it wouldn't make consumption tax as bad on them. Plus it would encourage them to use that untaxed income wisely to deal with consumption tax, which inevitability could lead to them becoming wealthier and getting out of that 'poor' category.
JJbones88 7 months ago
@JJbones88 Well as it stands with the current tax system the poorest people generally do not pay income tax, so income tax being abolished would not help them, at least directly. You say that it would encourage them to spend their money more wisely, but with regards to something like food; what could be a wiser investment than food? Most poor people being unable to pay for food is not a matter of unwise expenditures, but merely that they lack the funds altogether.
NSO3451 7 months ago
@NSO3451 You should watch the other videos posted by LearnLiberty. One specifically called are the poor getting poorer? You will note that the people that are poor (for the most part) are teenagers and immigrants. Imagine the positive effect of having teenagers eat with their families again. Imagine the incentive to join the community for immigrants. American charities have never had a hard time keeping up with food needs, and certainly wouldn't with more discretionary money for donators.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican I actually have watched those videos. You're argument seems valid. I still think the system isn't perfect, but in comparison to the current system it's fantastic, so I would support a modified sales tax over an income tax. This is unrelated; but I think an other good policy would be to repeal all drug laws. I'm not a user myself, but it's wasted money, and a possible revenue stream if it were taxed.
NSO3451 6 months ago
@JJbones88 With respect to the desire for a simplified tax system, I feel that things like food should be exempt from this consumption tax. I would not wish to complicate the tax code further than that. When you tax something, you get less of it. If we tax food consumption, then it becomes less accessible to the poorest people. When price goes up, demand goes down, except food is a need, so demand can't go down. Instead it just makes food more difficult to get for those that already struggle.
NSO3451 7 months ago
@JJbones88 I also have an addendum. I understand the demand for a flat rate on consumption. But should some products not be exempt? I'm primarily thinking of food. It would seem to me that a tax on food would hurt the poorest of the country quite badly.
NSO3451 7 months ago
If you agree with this video. Then you agree with Ron Paul. Vote for him.
asg102 8 months ago
@asg102 Lol basically.
varnlestoff 8 months ago
Thats it?
PoliticalWeekly 8 months ago
What cutting entitlements would ACTUALLY do is take away the safety net for those most vulnerable IN A TIME OF CRISIS, which is THE LAST thing we should do in these tough times, and make them even more vulnerable. They have less money, which means they'll pay less in taxes and have less ability to support themselves. They'll either have to take REALLY REALLY modest means to support themselves or find even shittier jobs in desperation, which helps NO ONE. except maybe business owners.
whoo689 8 months ago
Libertarians and conservative economists need to stop thinking that gov't intervention can only have either a NEUTRAL or NEGATIVE impact on the economy. WHO SAYS IT CAN'T EVER BE POSITIVE?? Where's the economic law to support that nonsense? You ever think that maybe gov't programs like unemployment can COMPLEMENT growth? I mean, consider this. If you get laid off, but you have no income supports, and you weren't able to save up a lot, eventually you'll run out and have to either take a shitty
whoo689 8 months ago
job or basically go broke. In desperation, you'll have to take a much shittier job than you would've otherwise had to take IF you had unemployment to keep your finances in check and help you pay bills. You can afford to look for a good job to replace your old one. Yeah, some dipshits claim it "encourages dependency", but that's baloney. America's replacement rate for UI is nowhere near the European levels, so no one could live entirely off UI for long.
whoo689 8 months ago
Spending on things like job training and agencies that help locate workers to new jobs HELP speed up the process!
Do conservative and libertarian economists REALLY think that money all of a sudden gains magical anti-growth powers once it's in the hands of gov't? MONEY IS MONEY! What matters is how it's spent, not WHO spends it. A gov't monopoly and a private monopoly (privatization) that takes over those facilities are not all that diff. Private monopolies can be just as inefficient.
whoo689 8 months ago
If gov't covers healthcare costs, people won't have to wait til the last minute to get necessary treatment (waiting just increases the cost) when they have to go to the ER for free care. They can get treated much sooner, which increases productivity, reduces lost work hours, and so on. PLUS, if the private sector DOESN'T have to cover healthcare costs, that means more profits for them, which would (theoretically) allow them to hire MORE people and perhaps even increase real pay.
whoo689 8 months ago
This load of shit about how "big government" hinders economic growth is just that- a load of shit. It has NO empirical backing whatsoever. Besides, even IF there was a relationship, correlation is NOT causation. Remember when we had TREMENDOUS growth and productivity increases during the postwar era up until the 1970s?? But the middle class was STILL very prosperous, and gov't was fairly large with a good deal of programs. Reagan and Goldwater were totally wrong about this.
whoo689 8 months ago
Btw, you DO realize that the "G" in the GDP equation stands for "government", right? So without GOVERNMENT spending on a number of projects and agencies, the economic growth would be EVEN LESS. Which means the private sector really isn't as strong and perfect as you think, now is it? Needs a little help from gov't every now and then?
Of course, you COULD argue that gov't is "crowding out", but that's bull. The private and public sectors' interests and wishes are quite diff., for starters.
whoo689 8 months ago
Plus, even WITH social welfare programs, the amount of money that charities and charitable organizations take in and distribute to the poor is STILL about the same as a percentage of GDP as it was pre-New Deal or pre-Great Society. Taxes DO take money out of the economy, and a case COULD be made against very high taxes, but we haven't had high taxes in a LONG time, except maybe for the corporate tax. Then again, most corporations don't pay high effective tax rates, and some pay nothing.
whoo689 8 months ago
Freezing new regulations MAY help grow the economy... at a cost. What if the regulation is something like Wall St. reform, totally necessary to prevent another crash and not allow these giant banking and financial institutions from going wild? What if it's a new safety regulation to help make sure businesses don't cut costs excessively and put an undue burden on miners? The disastrous potential results of NOT putting in those regulations can have JUST AS BIG a cost to the economy!
whoo689 8 months ago
The idea that a regulation ONLY affects businesses or the organizations required to carry them out or abide by them is LUDICROUS! Many regulations, if not most, give the economy and society NET BENEFITS overall, not net costs. Looking at what it costs to businesses is looking at just one side of the equation. I mean, MAYBE there is a good number of regulations that DO put more cost on society and businesses than net benefit, but I doubt it's anywhere near 50% of regulations.
whoo689 8 months ago
Let's look at those regulations which have overall negative impacts on society and see if we can perhaps streamline them or make them economically efficient while keeping the original spirit of the law. Doing away with a strong environmental or safety regulation that helps consumers and workers simply b/c it "costs too much" to Shell Oil makes no sense.
whoo689 8 months ago
Plus, I'm sure there are at least a few studies showing that when organizations like the COC or certain corporations bitch and whine about "overregulation" or the costs of this or that proposed regulation, they just don't want the increased costs PERIOD, not that it actually increases costs "too much." In other words, they're likely overexaggerating the actual costs of many of these regulations. If it sounds farfetched, consider the fact that even VERY PROFITABLE companies still offshore jobs.
whoo689 8 months ago
These are very profitable firms which DO NOT NEED to cut costs by desperate measures like that, yet they do it anyway. And WHO is to blame? Shareholders! The overreliance on shareholder capitalism is killing this nation. STAKEHOLDER capitalism makes more sense in the long run. Who gives a fuck about these damn shareholders? Do they even give you all that much in terms of additional money in the long run, esp. compared to sales revenues and other profit avenues?
whoo689 8 months ago
Besides, you're gonna have to pay back A LOT of that money ANYWAY through dividends, right? Were companies REALLY so much less profitable and able to generate market power, relative to revenues and GDP, prior to the era of shareholder capitalism? I doubt it. Obviously they have increased in ABSOLUTE terms, but I think it just gives executives way too much of an excuse to cut costs above and beyond what's necessary to satisfy return on stock investment.
whoo689 8 months ago
In any NORMAL organization or household, if you've got MILLIONS or even 100s of millions, let alone BILLIONS in profits (revenues MINUS costs, btw), you would say, "Well, we've got plenty, so there's no need to drastically cut costs", right? BUT NOOO... corporate America has this twisted view that they ALWAYS need to drastically cut costs, esp. to satisfy shareholders. It's a ridiculous race to the bottom. All to raise your stock price on Wall Street a little more. Fuck it
whoo689 8 months ago
Corporate America is on overdrive when it comes to pursuit of profit in this day and age. We've seriously gotta moderate the trend. I've nothing against profit, but putting VERY HUGE profits above everything else, including your employees' welfare and rights, makes no sense to me. I mean, the head of Air Japan turned the co. around, but he only makes 90 grand a year! So obviously this crap about "huge salaries for execs are needed to attract talent" is bs.
whoo689 8 months ago
Obviously those execs are just so extremely greedy and NEED very lavish, extravagant lifestyles that they won't accept the job without the HUGE compensation packages. They think of themselves as ABOVE the average worker. If they TRULY cared about the job and wanted to do a good job running the co., why need such a huge compensation? Couldn't 5 or 10 million do the job? 20 million? Getting overall compensation and severance packages of over 100 or 200 million seems excessive.
whoo689 8 months ago
And yet... rather than CHALLENGE corporate America on these points, many libertarians and conservatives (and some free traders like even Paul Krugman) seem to just ACCEPT these changes and trends as 'necessary' and "economically logical." WHY??? Economists need to be a lot more skeptical of business instead of taking these things for granted. Skepticism of gov't economics is fine, but you ALSO need to hold big business accountable. It's not about private vs. public.
whoo689 8 months ago
We KNOW mixed economies do best. It's about what the best COMBINATION of strong private and public sectors is. The public sector needs the private sector, but private needs public just as much. A state with a too-strong gov't can be quite totalitarian, but a state with too strong of a private sector can crush consumers and workers all the same. Neither should have excessive power; power should rest with THE PEOPLE, average Americans trying to get by.
whoo689 8 months ago
Why is it OK for economists to constantly question what the gov't does with money and/or taxation, but it's TABOO to question what corporations and businesses do, as if EVERYTHING they do is logical and rational?? 100% of the time? REALLY?
whoo689 8 months ago
@whoo689 because if the businesses don't act logical and rational they will fail ,as long as we don't bailout them.
Economist5432 8 months ago
@whoo689
Holy crap that was some long winded diatribe. I didn't realize how accurate the term holy crap was! Mixed economies are NOT the most successful and history has demostrated this. The less gov't crap there is, the more successful the country. Hell compare Sweden to Norway, South Korea to North Korea.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
Exactly HOW does cutting entitlements "increase growth"? I've seen NO empirical evidence in any long-term example of a single gov't doing this that could actually prove what Jeff is saying. The Right LOVES to claim that "big gov't" is hindering growth, but that's nonsense! Besides, it's not THAT simplistic. It depends on WHAT parts of gov't you're referring to. You can't just claim that because gov't spends a lot, somehow it's "reducing growth." That's total bull.
whoo689 8 months ago
@whoo689 Let's see, if I am good at making products that people want to buy, I get rich. If my company is good at making those products it makes profits. So, the more money I and my company make, the greater benefit I have provided to the society and you think that taking the money that I made from me and giving it to someone who has proven incapable of doing anything anywhere near as productive wouldn't hurt growth?
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
I dont agree that we should tax everything the same. we should tax more goods that create externalities like gasoline. when you pollute more, you should pay more. for the rest, i'm a libertarian and totally agree with him.
Economist5432 8 months ago
Consumption tax instead of income tax. Why don't our friends in Washington understand this?
bwaryn 8 months ago
Valued added tax! Do it.
PolitcalIslam 9 months ago
Well growing the economy would mean eliminating debt obviously. And the only President to ever ever eliminate national debt was Andrew Jackson. How did he do that, he killed the banks. Little did he know they rose back up. We have to kill the banks. Just by eliminating that problem we would start to grow.
TheRandomSkillz 9 months ago
Why hasn't this video been seen by millions? How did this fellow get into Harvard? How does he KEEP his job at Harvard if he talks like this? That's OK, I guess, they'll take him at the University of Chicago....
megaplankton 9 months ago
@megaplankton Harvard is a lot different now than it was a decade ago. Quite a few Harvard economists today are market oriented.
GrandOldPete 9 months ago