@NoNameC68 Uncle Sam: "Oh, your loved one died, how sad. What's this, money and property that I have already tax now belongs to you? Well then I guess i will kick you while you are down and steal what is already yours and what i have already taken my share from.
I want to kick whoever thought of the inheritance tax in the face.
@CWScott24 Everyone feels inheritance tax helps make life more fair. Why should he be rich because his dad was rich? If that's the case, it should be illegal for parents to spend money on their children.
I am 100%. That if you have 50 rich people and 50 poor people and you shift their wealth to oposite group. 1 year after shift, poor will be poor again and rich will gain money again. Being wealthy is a state of mind not capital.
@B1naryCZ Wealth has more to do with quality of life, in which having more money in this country gives you better healthcare, safer living conditions, less work/stress, and luxuries. Milton Friedman is a sick fuck who wants people to think they need to live in poverty to benefit everyone else.
@wulfmanUNCP If that were to happen public services would have such tremendous amount of funding no one could possibly be in poverty, not that I agree with a 100% inheritance tax. The young man was just making a point about how the capitalist system predetermines success when that's just plain bullshit.
Lets look at someone like Ady Gil. At 1 point had only $200 dollars to his name. Now he is a multimillionare. So saying that if you start out poor means you will end up poor is a lie.
In a shared, resource-based economy all effort would be to advance technology because we all would draw from it equally. This would result in a higher standard of living for all except the most wealthy 1% today. He completely dismisses any collective social motivations, which is, of course, in keeping with this ideology's desire to atomize us into individuals with no social connection. Families are merely extensions of isolated individuals who can consolidate power in a supposedly free market.
Friedman doesn't even conceive that people could have incentives that don't involve wealth and high-living, and he thinks technological improvement will only occur in a market society with wealth incentive. This is a fallacy. He is not acknowledging the structural problem that there is incentive NOT to allow technological improvement because of things like competitive strategies to maximize revenue and retooling costs. Intellectual copyrights are also stifling to development.
@donques If Friedman didn't consider interests in people other than wealth, then he wouldn't be for freedom. Now since when is providing a worse service more competitive? It's about worth, if something cost $10000 and increases production by 0.0001 percent, it's probably not worth it. One only needs to look at a non capitalist nation. Cuba for instance, look at the cars and technology there, it's as if they are stuck in time. I do agree about Intellectual copyright, not a part of a free system.
@donques There are other factors that go into reducing tech improvements to maximize current gains. Alot of it comes from government interference via industry buying support from legislators to regulate an industry, forcing start-ups to comply with costly new rules that they might not be able to afford.
Lets talk about the land that once belonged to the natives and after being stolen was given for free to the colonies..... Talking about redistribution of wealth!!!! And then later slavery...which we are still profiting from it!!!
Get off of your tired horse. If what you said was true, countries or nations that did NOT have large swaths of slavery would be destitute or have retarded economies. That is obviously not the case. Further, if what you said was true, places where SLAVERY STILL EXISTS, would be economic juggernauts. That is OBVIOUSLY not the case either. Shove your 18th and 19th century complaints up your ass.
@diskpanic Wow!!!! looks like i poked a wound. Anyway my horse is not tired, and if you want to be rude and ignorant is your choice. The point that you make is irrelevant which i must say that every year we have on our calendar The Holocaust remembrance day, Columbus DAY, Thanks Giving day..... You keep on dreaming of your megalomaniac ideology of freedom and liberty. We cannot turn our backs on history because if we do, the 18th century and the 19th will repeat. " once you alone you will die"
Love this video, but unfortunately, the current generation no longer operates under the premise of adding utility or means for the next generation. They want what they feel they deserve, but don't feel there should be any work involved. I'm young, under 30, and a part of the generation coming into power, and it does make me worry for the future. The kid debating Firedman sounds like every one of my peers in my graduate school program. Sigh.....
100% inheritance tax would result in everyone doing all they can to avoid it.
Personally i do advocate a high inheritance tax (finding the top of the IT laffer curve), so we can offset taxes such as income taxes and corporate taxes and people will find it easier and be more incentives to get richer during their lives.
I say let's destroy the incentives to have wealth! Who's with me? Fuck the depression and the $4 Walmart Rx and the "gimme gimme gimme" culture. Like Kurt Vonnegut said Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia. " FUCK WEALTH and MISERS. Let's get more anarchy like in Fight Club, you greedy bastard humans.
Anyone who thinks that a 100% inheritance tax is a good idea is crazy. How is that fair? Why would one family work hard, save, and accumulate wealth so another family can just do whatever they please because they know they will be taken care of? It wouldn't work. There's no incentive whatsoever to try to better yourself.
@KCost82 it's not that it's crazy, it's just the message has been wildly disfigured. many people still think that the rich man is the factory owner who passes down his factory to his family, that's obviously far from the truth, but ppl don't seem to realize it.
so instead of us demanding stock options, we are demanding rolled heads
I fail to see how a 100% inheritance tax would destroy incentives. It would just change them. Now the incentive isn't to pass on wealth on to your children, but to pass on 'knowledge' of how to gain that wealth to them. If you can't do that, then hey I guess the 'cream' really doesn't rise to the top, now does it? The concept of material property is absurd. There is only one type of property anyone can truly 'own': one's own person or character. Another Friedman FAIL.
@agentssith So because you don't comprehend his point on incentive destruction, you consider that Friedman's failure (Failure is the correct word, by the way. Fail is a verb. But at least you didn't throw an epic in front of it...)? Sounds to me like you FAIL.
"just change them". So tell me, what would you do if you had a portfolio of 500k after a successful career at 75 after retirement, under your regime? You would spend absolutely all of it, in *frivolous consumption*. Why wouldn't you? Why invest at all? You are forced to bequeath the rest to the Treasury at gunpoint, why not buy a yacht? Think this through. Ofc if the concept "material property" is nonsensical to you, none of my other premises would be, so good day.
God that kid is clueless! A 100% inheritance tax would mean that the government owns your wealth and you don't own shit. There's no freedom where there's no ownership of property, especially the ownership of your labor. Instead of crying about life, how about being grateful for your opportunity to work and earn some wealth, and stop trying to steal someone else's labor just because you don't want to work.
I hate liberal pompous busybodies like that kid. I's none of his business if a kid is born poor in another country. Let him go help. And he wants to use it as an excuse to steal the money of the wealthy under the guise of morality. That's immoral and a ruse for his crimes that will serve his selfish interest for importance, power, and a slice of the pie. Liberals are too lazy or unskilled to earn money, so they go into politics to steal it legally. Shame on all of them. Pelosi is a crooked bitch
@Azraelseraphim a true conservative would also be fiscally conservative, how many true conservatives are around? ron paul to name one, try naming another lol
@mrgetrealpeople I don't work for the government. I'm not a burden to the US taxpayer. I pay taxes instead of these net takers. Politicians and welfare cheats are net takers. They know how to vote themselves more money at the expense of people like me. It's criminal.
I am curious how Friedman would respond to one person in a society holding all the wealth out of 100 million. Because it would be more equitable to redistribute at that point because everyone would have money to buy and start up their own business thus creating a huge economic growth. Where if there was not redistribution 100 million people would still be poor, and thus no economic growth. Milton Friedman was a smart person shame that he is dead now.
1) you have to ask how did that person get that amount of wealth to begin with? you cant get rich without creating jobs and providing goods and services that people need to begin with unless it is done in an act of coercion.
2) what incentive does that tell to the rest of the population? no one would want to work to get to the same level as the rich person to begin with just so their hard work will be taken away by the state in the name of redistribution of wealth
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Like I said though once you redistribute people would have money and would be able to start their own business. Thus, people would be able to buy and sell. Keep in mind that if people were poor and then given money they would not care about a multi-billionaire getting his money redistributed. Why, because the average person knows that even if they start a business they would not be able to get over a billion $, thus they know that redistribution would not happen to them.
@VassiliZaitsev12 another thing, you have completely ignored the thing i said in my first point, that rich man would not have accumulated all that wealth without providing jobs and goods and services that people likes to the rest of the population. you take away his wealth, your going to get rid of all the jobs he has created and the goods and service people like or even depends on just so the the greed of the many can be satisfied on the expense of the rich mans enslavement
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Well, to your first point that doesn't matter. Someone could in a completely free market buy property and rent it out. Thus, slowly over the years he could buy all the property in the country. Because society has no laws or regulation on monopolies he owns all land and every has to pay rent. He then jacks up rent thus, everyone becomes poor. In this situation he did not create a service that provided jobs. In fact in this situation landlord enslaved everyone through rent
@VassiliZaitsev12 Here again you fall into the same trap. Monopolies are almost exclusively the creation of government intervention. They do not come into being as a result of the market (excepting very small cases - Bob has a monopoly on tire sales at Bob's Tire Mart). In fact, the presence of private property ownership has been a fundamental factor in the general ELIMINATION of poverty, not its increase.
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Thirdly, you did not do a counter argument about incentive. I said that people like me would not be affected by the redistribution, thus I would gain prosperity and could start my own business, and still be motivated. Now, the context of the redistribution I think is important. People need to know that redistribution is because one person in society held 99% of the wealth. Given that people would know that they would not be taxed the same unless they had 99% of the wealth.
@VassiliZaitsev12 The problem here is one of anecdote (and reliance upon the same extreme example that doesn't hold up). In the real world the argument is for the redistribution of wealth from a much larger group of people that control far, far less than 99% of the wealth. It inherently destroys the incentives of those being so heavily taxed (who got wealthy providing goods and services that people demand), but undermines the incentives for the rest of society, if not a particular individual.
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Would you care if the only multi-billionaire had his money redistributed when everyone is poor? Even if you do care people like me would not feel the lack of incentive, thus people like me would gain prosperity and would be able to start a business, and make money. The population at a whole knows that redistribution only happened in this case of ultra rich. How people believe that they can get all the wealth in the country? Thus, people still have incentive
first of all, that called stealing. all forms of taxation is stealing. also stealing is a form of enslavement since money is time and work put in by the owner of that money ..... you steal his money against his will, you basically enslave the men.
are you telling me that just because a person is is better off than the rest of the population, your going to discriminate against him to become the slave of the society?
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Secondly, in society we pay taxes for services that the private sector could not make a profit off of, such as: roads, police, military, etc. Thus, you pay taxes to live in society. If you don't pay taxes it is consider stealing from society because you are using roads, and police service that other people's tax dollars are going to. So, taxation is not stealing. Taxation is not a form of enslavement. Taxation is for goods and services that is for the public gets to enjoy
@VassiliZaitsev12 i respect your opinion as an individual about redistribution and taxation and i would not dream of anything to harm you because of your opinions. however, would you grant me the same respect that ive given you on the matter?
@VassiliZaitsev12 Vassili taxation is force regardless, but it is a necessary evil, no one questions this. however the more you pay for police the more you empower them correct?
taxation is not for the public, its for the govt to continue running
@UpalKashey Friedman's argument is that you should not redistribute because everyone else in society would not have incentive. However, I said that is a flawed logic because I would still have incentive. Friedman says nothing about taxation being "evil" or wrong. You clearly have a medieval view on taxes. Without taxes you would not have a military. If you want you can live in the wild where other nations can attack you.
@VassiliZaitsev12 i never said i am against taxes, and neither did friedman from any of his lectures. the goal here is to understand incentive on a large scale. you are misrepresenting the entire debate. you went from arguing the morality of taxes to arguing the needs.
@UpalKashey Okay, for one you guys started talking about the morality of taxes. Saying that taxes is wrong and forceful. Second, taxes are required to live in a society, but yet you seem to hold the view that they are wrong in the sense that it is forced. However, if you don't want to pay taxes you don't have to live here that is your choice, thus it is not forced. You always have a choice. Third, you still haven't countered my argument about incentive after taxing someone that has 99% of wealth
@VassiliZaitsev12 yessir. lol actually you are right ppl who dont want to pay island hop correct? yes. this costs us big time revenue.
let me explain this, it's my fault, we DO think taxes are immoral and forceful, however we understand what they are needed for and when, there are no perfect choices, but there are ways to narrow the choices from the worst to the least worst, you see the difference.
@VassiliZaitsev12 we need taxes, that's undeniable at this point in our history, however by taxing 1% of the population we are gambling on the idea that they will stick around to get taxed, which they won't. best example people moving from NYS to Florida to avoid income tax. now think about this on a global scale my friend
@VassiliZaitsev12 furthermore you will never generate the revenue you want without taxing the larger % of the population which is 119 million americans making over 47k. in order to provide these ppl with benefits you need to tax them collectively at over 40%, what happens then, is that some ppl benefit, some ppl suffer, but the paychecks are still cut in half. I hope i helped clarify, and i do apologize if i sounded like a dick
@VassiliZaitsev12 so again 1) ppl already move both their corperations and their income overseas, and across states 2) nobody wants their investment being taken due to death, or sickness, the incentive of creation would not be lost, but it would be withheld from US
3) while this is all theory, we use this theory to make best choices out of the worst choices.
@UpalKashey I am arguing directly against friedman's point of taxation. He says that taxation for the wealthy will "ONLY" discourage the rest of the population from wanting to get wealthy also. I pointed out that this principle is erroneous based off the fact that if someone had 99% of the wealth the society would be worse off, and poor. At this point society would tax anyone that held 99% of the wealth, thus people would not have to fear taxation when they became rich.
@VassiliZaitsev12 it's not a faulty argument if you understand that the ppl who get taxes are family owned millionaires and not just corporations. the incentive to own and become rich diminishes when you already get the basics from your govt. that is seen clearly in countries with large socialist rule.
@UpalKashey Secondly, talking about taxes in a normal scenario you do have to tax the average person. But, the problem that is playing out in America is that the wealthy are starting to control the wealth. The top 1% of rich people own 42% of the Financial Wealth in the U.S. If you are not intrigued by that fact alone you still have to wonder about at what point can the top 1% own before you are uncomfortable with it, 50%, 60%, 80%?
@UpalKashey Like I said if you are paying 35% taxes you have a terrible accountant and should get a better jew. j/k. But seriously, you have to get a better accountant if you are paying 35%. WE made enough tax loop holes for them. Look at Obama he paid less than 35%, and Mitt paid what was it less than 20% for his taxes. You are stupid if you are paying taxes at 35%, thus the real tax rate in the US for the rich is not 35%
@VassiliZaitsev12 The problem is with the definition of "control". In fact, that 1% changes radically over time and income mobility is so robust in the US that nearly a third of those n the poorest 20% will eventually be in the wealthiest 20%. This is because overwhelmingly, the wealth of the top 1% is EARNED over a lifetime of productive activity. To undermine them is to undermine the activities that got them there.
@UpalKashey Thirdly, if you want to talk about taxation in practice I imagine that you would argue that if everyone in America was taxed 50% of their pay all the wealthy people would leave? That is what you are saying with rich people right now that only pay 25% taxes. So, according to your argument that people will leave to a country with less tax we would conclude that Europe would have no one then. Europe has 50% taxes yet they have a stronger economy than the US.
@VassiliZaitsev12 are you denying that europeans are not flocking virtually everywhere, austraila, New Zealand, and the US. how about their corperations. hooooly cow how they outsource. on top of that Europe DOES NOT have 50% taxes, you are talking about particular countries. Greece for example has huge taxes, but no one pais LOL!
@UpalKashey Well for one the highest taxes in the world for individual taxes are in Europe. Period. If you want to talk about migration of individuals they why again is Europe have a better economy than the US? If you want to argue about quality of life, who cares about the poor people. I believe in a market system and if GDP is up that means you have a better system than the US. Economic GDP is all that matters because that means people are rich in your country. I would rather have a higher GDP
@UpalKashey Let me give you examples of europe's tax rates. Belgium over 53%, Germany 50%, France 50%, Sweden over 45%, Italy 45%, Turkey 43%, Denmark low 40%
So, yeah the only two places that have high GDP is US, and EURO. So, Europe workers can go else where, and same for the US but the rest of the world is third world compare to these two. That is why people for the most part stay in US and Europe. Sure euro has migration during recession but study show that they always come back afterwards
@VassiliZaitsev12 holy cow my friend, i think i like you but do you not see the contradiction in your own analysis here? Europeans generally migrate and then come back, that speaks volumes when we discuss taxes. Europeans do come back to their half-broken system, but make no mistake about it they still migrate here, why? it's not war anymore. what is it? they want more money. they want to keep their money, in short the best of all worlds. but they piggy bank on us.
@UpalKashey Indeed, but migration happen because of a recession, which this one was caused by the US. Thus, people in euro are not leaving because of taxation they are leaving because of a recession. The taxation and recession are two different things. According to some UK think tank studies (I can't argue how valid they are, or which political leanings they had) migration of workers happens most often during a recession and it's in search of a job.
@VassiliZaitsev12 the US wasn't solely responsible whatsoever, ever hear of banks like Soverign (Spain) HSBC. IMF for example lol.
secondly ppl migrate for work and surprisingly countries that have lower taxes, allow faster start ups and have lower salary requirements provide work. Go try to find a job in denmark, france, spain, or even Canada. you just proved the entire issue of taxes and over-regulation. the two are inclusive. and lead to serious issues.
@UpalKashey Also, a point on the recession. The US recession was caused because of overleveraging of US companies. This was because US companies didn't have gov regulation to stop them from taking on too much risk. This high risk caused a bubble and almost destroyed the whole fin system because of lack of gov! According to the study people don't migrate because of lower taxes they only migrate to places that have jobs. Look at France universal healthcare high tax, yet 4th in the world for econ
@VassiliZaitsev12 when you say destroyed the whole financial system you are making an erroneaous staement, all that would have happened is the large banks would have to collapse and be bought out by smaller banks. there would be a feeding frenzy for these sharks, meanwhile the only homeowners that would be at risk are the ones who made terrible decisions. the recovery wouldn't take too long as the smaller banks would simply jump on the opportunity.
@UpalKashey For starters the whole financial system would have fallen. Why? Because you had all the banks inter-loaning to each other. The shadow banking industry, or better know as hedgefunds, or MMF the ones unregulated by the feds were taking on too much risk. When you had Bear Stearns, and other unreg companies go bankrupt they pulled their money from other banks to cover their loss. Since other banks reserve requirements where so low you had a cascade of bank failures.
@VassiliZaitsev12 final point. and i think i said this before. you need to understand WHY it is we argue against taxes looking at historical data and what is accomplished on a low tax system. You cannot refute this, you will not be able too. So yes we need revenue for our govt to be up kept. but when we pay a tax to the EPA and they systematically shut down projects that could provide work, and relief, then the culprit is the funding of the EPA. do you see?
@VassiliZaitsev12 and when we provide tax dollars to a terrible healthcare system, or public school system, only to see the private sector making all the results and the public sector with nearly 5x more money in it's HC programs one has to ask himself WTF?! lol
you have to ask yourself how can this revenue be contained, and how can it be dispersed honestly in a large 50 state federal govt?
@UpalKashey Secondly, medicare, medicaid, and social security are complete socialist programs. Meaning that they are run 100% by the gov. If you want to reduce taxes reduce all three programs. Let's look at the facts if you add all three programs, and military, plus the net interest it all adds up to 68% of the fed budget or $2.4 trillion. The rest of the fed programs ie public schools are a tiny % of the budget. So, you can ignore all other gov programs because the cost is a small % of budget
@VassiliZaitsev12 and the market fixes itself far faster than the govt is able to. it's just a matter of organic movment as opposed to rigid. an organic govt can never exist for obvious reasons
@UpalKashey Markets often don't fix themselves faster. How can I say that? Look at the Great Depression for one. If you don't believe that then look at the lost decade of Japan. No gov intervention and it lasted 10 yrs of slow growth.
@UpalKashey Thirdly, think about those socialist programs medicare, medicaid, and social security. Try talking to anyone on voting day in the republican party to cut any one of those three, and you will find that people love those programs. By def all three programs are complete socialist/communist, but the republican people want social security, they want medicare, and they want medicaid. Why? because it is a market failure in this society and everyone wants the gov to fix the market failure
@VassiliZaitsev12 absolutely. they are popular but that doesn't mean are right. the HC market never failed my friend, it was taken over. and you are 100% right no one wants them gone not repubs not dems, but again they are not legit programs. they suck countries dry. fixing a market failure is entirely different then taking over the market
@UpalKashey You know what, I'm tired of explaining economics w/500 characters at a time. I have an economic degree and I can't take trying to explain everything in broke small paragraph messages. 2008 recession just do some google search I'm sure you can piece it together yourself w/o my help
@VassiliZaitsev12 one point you made about the market not providing social security as being a market failure. when social security first came about it was a completely new concept and there was never a market for it. its not that the free market failed but that the concept of social security was new and the gov. jumped on it first. in todays society a privatised social security equivalent would work.
@manofbusiness91 Actually, Soc Sec was made because of the biggest market failure, which was the savings for older people and unemployment. The market failure was older people losing all their saving/retirement money when the free market crashed. Before 1935, people had to invest in their retirement on their own, and this resulted in mass poverty among old people, this is market failure I am talking about. The private sector didn't guarantee retirement money, thus a lot of people became poor.
@VassiliZaitsev12 but the concept of a retirement plan that people payed into was new, so what i mean is that the Market for such a plan was entirely new and that a privatised social security plan would work even better. and its hardly a market failure because the great depression was greatly deepened by the government policies ;New Deal' and that made things far worse, and maybe look into the Feds hand in starting the Depression.
@manofbusiness91 First off you are confusing a couple of different issues here. The government program you are talking about that was gov reg to help poor people have access to loans was done with gov guarantee backing done in a limited fashion. Private companies decided to take on this sub prime risk fully knowing that they couldn't have gov backing if default happened. The gov didn't didn't reg the market because republicans hate gov regulation. They want the market to be as free as possible
@manofbusiness91 About retirement plans: The concept of retirement plans was not new. Before SS, people had to invest in the market for their own retirement plan. This would sometimes pay out, but in a recession esp like the great depression everyone lost their retirement money that they had invested. Thus, the gov said the market is consistently causing poverty among old people. That is a problem in society, and consider a market failure when you have massive poverty.
@manofbusiness91 Also, you clearly don't understand econ if you think that the gov prolonged the recession. Look at the lost decade of japan, they did no gov intention and for 10 years had slow growth and a second recession during that time. Here is the thing in the long run the market will fix it's self, but it might take 10-15 years to heal from the massive blow. Gov can hire people, thus increase jobs, etc to speed up the recovery.
@manofbusiness91 Once, again I know what you are trying to argue with gov causing worse recession, but what you are arguing is Austrian school of economics. I can almost guarantee you haven't study economics let alone Austrian school of economics. Now, I have an economic degree, which means I have studied this extensively and what you are saying simply isn't accurate. I would start with Irving Fisher debt deflation paper. It's a quick read, a bit boring but useful.
@VassiliZaitsev12 and you talking about the housing bubble as if there wasnt enough gov. involved. dont forget to take into account fannie and freddie, and also the regulation that was passed forcing banks to approve those subprime loans. that there was at the heart of it. the Federal Reserve Bank was also a culprit, with the easy credit and low interest rates. remember in a free market there would be no freddie and fannie, no FED, cont....
@manofbusiness91 and no politicians trying to get reelected, with the mantra 'a home for every american' by dabbling in the market. Capitalism works, not crony capitalism, or socialism. the US is more socialist than anything.
@manofbusiness91 To your second post the sub prime mortgages was created because the gov regulated prime mortgages in the banking industry. The hedgefunds companies started up to get away from reg from the gov so they could take on riskier loans like sub prime. So, yes the gov was involved and caused it because companies would not have started hedgefunds that acted like banks if the gov didn't reg. But as we can see that reg was in place to stop too much risk that caused the 2008 crash.
@manofbusiness91 Lastly, I would like to point out again that Most of the sub prime lending was from private industry with 84%.of the sub-prime loans. GSE's like Fannie and Freddie had gov backing and reg, however, other companies that didn't have gov reg wanted in on the subprime market, and they are the ones that caused the huge bubble. It was no regulation that caused companies that didn't have gov oversight or backing that took on the risk, hoping for large profits, that caused the bubble.
@VassiliZaitsev12 i agree with you in that people got too greedy and that the hedge fund companies overleveraged to the hilt, but before all this malinvestment, and before this greed was started, it was incentivised by the government, the bubble was started by government policy and fed policy, and once the bubble started everyone jumped aboard. people make mistakes but what im trying to say is that the bubble wouldn't of even been there without government.
@manofbusiness91 and by government policy i mean the mandate to supply mortages to everyone, and also the fed policy with low interest rates. these combined to give the effect of a subsidized housing market and as with anything subsidized it became more lucrative and expensive and that is why so many people got into the market.
@manofbusiness91 and you have to wonder, if the government was so adamant about regulating the housing market, then why were subprime mortgages allowed? why were the hedgefunds allowed to buy mortgages? it was because the bubble was what the government wanted, this boom was what the government wanted, remember that during the bubble no one in government even knew that it was a bubble, they thought that it was good for the economy, when they were obviously wrong.
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
@VassiliZaitsev12 you know i already agreed with you on the greed part lol, but like i said the lending practices were not sound, and it started with fannie and freddie. do you think that people who dont have jobs need a 2 or 300,000 dollar house? thats insane, and now the government is left all this debt. trillions of it. it doesnt matter if they are backed by fannie and freddie, as soon as the government backs any leveraging that the banks do, contingency liabilities aremade
@manofbusiness91 backing all those homes was a bad idea, look at the debt crisis, it only got worse from the bubble, which while being made bigger by the greed of wallstreet, was facilitated from start to finish by the government and the fed. if you dont believe me go listen to any austrian economist, that school as a whole, pretty much predicted the bubble and the ongoing recession.
@manofbusiness91 Okay, once again, the gov didn't back any of the companies on sub prime. Frannie and Freddie are a GSE that is gov reg. The other companies are private and did not have gov backing. What happened the other companies started defaulting and the Fed's said they couldn't bail them out at the start because they were not under Fed reg, thus because they were not reg they did not have the Fed's bailout. However, we all know what happened next the problem became known as too big to fail
@VassiliZaitsev12 i understand that the private companies didn't have gov. backing, i totally get that, im singling out freddie and fannie and their liabilities. i understand what happened during the crisis, ive spent probably 70 or 80 hrs researching it. i still have lots to uncover about it, but i definitely get the gist of it.
@manofbusiness91 and if you understand the austrian business cycle, how easy credit and artificially low interest rates cause people to take on too much risk and to put their money into areas that dont warrant their investment. you would also see how government subsidizing (which is what essentially happened) causes the misallocation of resources. and the bust that follows must be market driven because all those resources must be reallocated into the right sectors.
@manofbusiness91 Here is the thing then if you know that the private sector didn't have backing. It is their fault for not complying with regulation to get Fed bailouts. For example, reserve requirements is one form of reg that companies did adhere to. If you take on too much risk w/o a high enough reserve requirement then when shit hits the fan like it did your company can sit back and deal with it. But companies hate reserve because that is profit loss.
@manofbusiness91 Simply saying low interest and easy access is the problem is simplifying interest. It's an erroneous statement. To explain how it effects the money market, and others takes to long
@manofbusiness91 The thing is with Freddie and Fannie it was created knowing that it was going to have problems, which is why the gov backed them. It was essentially a social program for the most vulnerable citizens. Freddie and Fannie itself couldn't cause the housing bubble simply put. They had higher reg than private sector, and they are small compared to the rest of the market. One company could not do the damage of an entire private sector so to say Freddie and Fannie was behind it is wrong
@VassiliZaitsev12 if fannie and freddie was knowingly going to have problems then why create them? why not dump more money into low income housing? whats the point in giving a teaser rate on a quarter million dollar house then when the rate changes or the mortgage resets, having an unsustainable amount of defaults?
@manofbusiness91 i guess im not fighting against the reg of fannie and freddie, just against their existence, because regardless whether the bubble existed or not those entities continued right to the last day making bad decisions and accumulated too much debt and mbs's that it went through conservatorship. its a huge money pit with no hope for success.
@manofbusiness91 if Fannie and Freddie were created knowing that there was going to be problems. then that seems like having the number of defaults that they had was allowable, then why take action? why conservatorship? because they had failed, had a failed policy and the gov realized it.
@manofbusiness91 Fannie's total assets to capital (leverage ratio) was about 20:1, while Freddie's was about 70:1. These numbers increase significantly if one includes all of the mortgage-backed assets they guaranteed. These ratios are considerably higher than investment banks, which leverage around 30:1. sounds like a failed policy to me, they over leveraged even more than the investment banks lol
@manofbusiness91 and yes i study the austrian school of thought, ive studied some of Smith's, Hayek's, Mises, and even Friedman's work. but i will read up on that paper, because im always open minded and willing to learn something.
@manofbusiness91 I don't mean to be a dick well not a complete dick. But, when I hear someone say they studied austrian school of econ, I think did they take some econ classes to study it? Or, did they just go onto the web and read some interesting articles on it, and watch some youtube of academics talking for 5 min. When I say I studied econ I mean I had to take adv calculus just to understand some classes I took. So, I always feel like its not the same when people say they studied econ indep
@VassiliZaitsev12 im in the process of taking some economic courses as part of my bachelor's of commerce, but i sincerely believe in the austrian school of thought, mostly because of its soundness and the fact that im a libertarian and believe in a limited government. im 20 and am still taking my courses tho, and why would you need adv calculus for economics? its not like engineering or anything, i thought actuary and statistics would suffice?
Econ uses a lot of math models to prove theories. You have to have strong understanding of math for some of the micro models. Also, Adv Econometrics requires and uses heavy amounts of calculus.
@VassiliZaitsev12 and id also like to say that the companies that went into the risky business, buying those mortgage backed securities and doing all that credit swapping without getting downgraded by moody's, went in at their own peril. the market is wonderful in that it rewards good decisions and punishes poor ones. except of course when they get bailed out!! ( another example of government interference in the market)
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
@UpalKashey Lastly, I understand that their has always been people that have hated taxes. But, we live in a society today, and to live in society you need taxes. On top of which as a society we see market failures due to the free market, and society has decided after feeling the effects of the free market they want safety nets put in place. Market failures is undesirable to society, and that is why we have such programs in the gov. We hope to reduce the damage the free market has done to us
@VassiliZaitsev12 we never had a free market sir you dont seem to belive this. for some reason you have this notion that the banks did whatever whenever. it's quite different.
@UpalKashey No one has a complete free market, nor does anyone ever have complete communism. Because both have too many problems when they are complete one way or the other. But, your point about banks doing whatever whenever can be argued to some extent. Bank regulations were non existent at the turn of the century or prior to that. Banks had no reserve requirements, they had no limit on how much they could lend out. For the most part they were free to do whatever they wanted.
@VassiliZaitsev12 and in terms of 1st world migration, companies migrate to the US for one reason alone, it still is cheaper than Europe. HOWEVER take a loot at eastern europe and the middle east. they have a very low corperate tax, take a look at the pacfic Rim, SHOCKING as it may seem they are pulling buisness in LIKE CRAAAAZY.
not for cheap labor , but because profits will be easier to keep.
good day Vassili. Are you from Ukraine, Belarus, Russia?
@UpalKashey Well, first off people don't migrate as much when the econ is doing well. So, that points out that recession drives migration not taxation. I understand your argument against the EPA, but we have health laws to keep ourselves safe from businesses. Without such safety nets people would get cancer, or sick from corporations that have found a cheaper way to make a product. I for one want protection from corporations that clear cut trees away and destroys and pollutes the environment.
@VassiliZaitsev12 Two problems, you are confusing the effective tax rate with the marginal (statutory) tax rate, when only the latter matters economically. Second, tax flight is a fully demonstrated phenomenon. And third, the assertion about stronger European economies suffers only from the problem that it is completely inaccurate. Only Norway (oil exports) and the tiny banking enclaves of Luxembourg and Lichtenstein have a higher standard of living that the US.
@UpalKashey PS I said 25% taxes because I work for the IRS and out of all the millionaires tax returns that I have processed not a single one paid the 35% tax rate. So, I took the average of what I saw.
@VassiliZaitsev12 US census reports 32,000 individuals in 08 who made over 1 million dollars paid income tax returns. this is a matter of facts and not personal experience.
@UpalKashey Your US census reports says that they paid income tax returns. But that is all you wrote. If you are paying 35% tax rate you have a bad accountant period. The tax system has so many loop holes. Even republicans think the tax system is terrible for the rich they see too many loop holes also. Jon Huntsman argued to redo the tax system to get rid of the tax loops.
@VassiliZaitsev12 Uh, no. That taxes are taken by force is simply a fact. Try not paying them and see what happens. If you have suggestions about where one might live without paying taxes.... Nevertheless, the nature of government is force and no choice is given as to whether one can choose not to pay for certain services. That one may (theoretically) leave has no bearing on the nature of the tax transaction.
@VassiliZaitsev12 Alas, it is your own logica that is flawed. Friedman is NOT arguing that every INDIVIDUAL in society "would not have incentive" but rather that, IN THE AGGREGATE the incentives would be reduced. He doesn't argue that all incentive will be eliminated but that the advantageous incentives are seriously undermined (as historical evidence demonstrates).
And you might look into the research on private security systems.
@VassiliZaitsev12 To the contrary, people pay taxes to pay for things that the state arbitrarily decides are a monopoly. Private roads have historcally been very successful (same with schools, postal services, etc.) The actions of the military, for that matter, have been extremely controversial. Your argument only holds if real benefit can be demonstrated on the whole for the services paid for with taxes. And that point is EASILY debated.
@VassiliZaitsev12 Again, you proceed from false premises - that a) it would be possible for someone to control "all" the wealth and b) it would be necessary for the state to engage in redistribution in order for others to obtain sufficient wealth. The very skills of the individuals of the remaider of society do not only represent a form of wealth but attract the investment that increases wealth for everyone. The problem you suggest is a red herring.
So, according to Milton Friedman if you can find a way to redistribute wealth wile maintaining incentive it would be okay. Milton argues that there is no way possible to do the two. I think this is coming down to principle. If one person held all the wealth in a society of 100 mill according to friedman you should not redistribute wealth because the other 100 mill people would not have incentive. This argument of course is absurd, thus in this case we have redistribution without taking incentive
@VassiliZaitsev12 you aren't understanding this at all are you. no offense sir.
but if someone has 100 million dollars they won't hold onto it. they have accumulated regardless, and will use it. what will they use it on. how will they get the product that they want?
@VassiliZaitsev12 i'm sorry i shouldnt have started the debate that way. but follow through on this philosophy. if you tax the savings of a family that is incredibly rich, what happens when the % of rich families decrease. what would that tax pay for.
@VassiliZaitsev12 you don't understand what he is talking about at all. the point is that there would be no incentive for someone to make money because its just going to be redistributed anyway
@fifaps3gaming Once again, you completely ignored what I SAID. I SAID THAT REDISTRIBUTION WOULD HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE HAS A 99% OF THE WEALTH, THUS IN THIS SITUATION EVERYONE IN SOCIETY WOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAXED UNLESS THEY CONTROLLED 99% OF THE WEALTH. THUS, INCENTIVE WOULD STILL BE AROUND, WHICH FRIEDMAN SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE! SO WHY DON'T YOU READ WHAT I WROTE, AND RESPOND TO THAT! YOU ARE ARGUING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID NOT MY POINTS
What a dumb stupid kid. Obama has the same neanderthal mentality as this moron.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 16 hours ago
Inheritance tax... ugh. That's the worst kind of tax I can imagine.
NoNameC68 2 days ago
@NoNameC68 Uncle Sam: "Oh, your loved one died, how sad. What's this, money and property that I have already tax now belongs to you? Well then I guess i will kick you while you are down and steal what is already yours and what i have already taken my share from.
I want to kick whoever thought of the inheritance tax in the face.
CWScott24 18 hours ago
@CWScott24 Everyone feels inheritance tax helps make life more fair. Why should he be rich because his dad was rich? If that's the case, it should be illegal for parents to spend money on their children.
NoNameC68 18 hours ago
@NoNameC68 well we are talking about marxist here so reason is already out of the question.
CWScott24 16 hours ago
I am 100%. That if you have 50 rich people and 50 poor people and you shift their wealth to oposite group. 1 year after shift, poor will be poor again and rich will gain money again. Being wealthy is a state of mind not capital.
B1naryCZ 5 days ago
@B1naryCZ Wealth has more to do with quality of life, in which having more money in this country gives you better healthcare, safer living conditions, less work/stress, and luxuries. Milton Friedman is a sick fuck who wants people to think they need to live in poverty to benefit everyone else.
habadashery2009 4 days ago
@habadashery2009 The guy that wants a 100% inheritance tax sounds like the sick fuck that wants everyone in poverty.
wulfmanUNCP 4 days ago
@wulfmanUNCP If that were to happen public services would have such tremendous amount of funding no one could possibly be in poverty, not that I agree with a 100% inheritance tax. The young man was just making a point about how the capitalist system predetermines success when that's just plain bullshit.
habadashery2009 4 days ago
Lets look at someone like Ady Gil. At 1 point had only $200 dollars to his name. Now he is a multimillionare. So saying that if you start out poor means you will end up poor is a lie.
ArodWingfoot 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In a shared, resource-based economy all effort would be to advance technology because we all would draw from it equally. This would result in a higher standard of living for all except the most wealthy 1% today. He completely dismisses any collective social motivations, which is, of course, in keeping with this ideology's desire to atomize us into individuals with no social connection. Families are merely extensions of isolated individuals who can consolidate power in a supposedly free market.
donques 5 days ago
Comment removed
donques 5 days ago
Friedman doesn't even conceive that people could have incentives that don't involve wealth and high-living, and he thinks technological improvement will only occur in a market society with wealth incentive. This is a fallacy. He is not acknowledging the structural problem that there is incentive NOT to allow technological improvement because of things like competitive strategies to maximize revenue and retooling costs. Intellectual copyrights are also stifling to development.
donques 5 days ago
@donques If Friedman didn't consider interests in people other than wealth, then he wouldn't be for freedom. Now since when is providing a worse service more competitive? It's about worth, if something cost $10000 and increases production by 0.0001 percent, it's probably not worth it. One only needs to look at a non capitalist nation. Cuba for instance, look at the cars and technology there, it's as if they are stuck in time. I do agree about Intellectual copyright, not a part of a free system.
DMAN123223 5 days ago
@donques There are other factors that go into reducing tech improvements to maximize current gains. Alot of it comes from government interference via industry buying support from legislators to regulate an industry, forcing start-ups to comply with costly new rules that they might not be able to afford.
wulfmanUNCP 4 days ago
Everyone's favorite crusty old Trotskyite.
ideologger 5 days ago
Lets talk about the land that once belonged to the natives and after being stolen was given for free to the colonies..... Talking about redistribution of wealth!!!! And then later slavery...which we are still profiting from it!!!
manmachine30 1 week ago
@manmachine30
Get off of your tired horse. If what you said was true, countries or nations that did NOT have large swaths of slavery would be destitute or have retarded economies. That is obviously not the case. Further, if what you said was true, places where SLAVERY STILL EXISTS, would be economic juggernauts. That is OBVIOUSLY not the case either. Shove your 18th and 19th century complaints up your ass.
diskpanic 6 days ago
@diskpanic Wow!!!! looks like i poked a wound. Anyway my horse is not tired, and if you want to be rude and ignorant is your choice. The point that you make is irrelevant which i must say that every year we have on our calendar The Holocaust remembrance day, Columbus DAY, Thanks Giving day..... You keep on dreaming of your megalomaniac ideology of freedom and liberty. We cannot turn our backs on history because if we do, the 18th century and the 19th will repeat. " once you alone you will die"
manmachine30 6 days ago
@manmachine30 Oh go cry me a river and jack off to Morrissey tapes you liberal piece of shit.
FredettaProductions 6 days ago
@FredettaProductions Thumbs up for you !!!!
manmachine30 6 days ago
@FredettaProductions A Samurai can chop your viking in half. Bushido!!!!
manmachine30 6 days ago
@manmachine30 okay? is that supposed to make me mad or be funny?
FredettaProductions 6 days ago
@FredettaProductions Funny!!!! like your life......
manmachine30 6 days ago
@manmachine30 shit comeback, now go fuck your couch
FredettaProductions 6 days ago
@FredettaProductions What??? Charlie Murpheeee. No nigger can have a nice couch... Fuck your couch nigger..... good one bro! take care
manmachine30 6 days ago
@FredettaProductions Im Rick James bitch!!
manmachine30 6 days ago
Love this video, but unfortunately, the current generation no longer operates under the premise of adding utility or means for the next generation. They want what they feel they deserve, but don't feel there should be any work involved. I'm young, under 30, and a part of the generation coming into power, and it does make me worry for the future. The kid debating Firedman sounds like every one of my peers in my graduate school program. Sigh.....
coachmw83 1 week ago
the students of yesteryear were more well spoken than those of today, but just as stupid.
zackhanscom 1 week ago
Friedman isn't an economist, he's a monetarist - and an evil dwarf.
javaman1891 1 week ago
Friedman's right.
Who needs police departments anyway? They're just a drain on the economy.
FuckPropertyRights 1 week ago
i'm glad that evil fuck is dead
blastsummit 1 week ago
@blastsummit and I thought these channels were voided of trolls.
JimmyRose1 1 week ago
@blastsummit shut up poor fuck
MrViktoro27 1 week ago
@MrViktoro27 open your mouth, i've got to piss
blastsummit 1 week ago
@blastsummit piss poor ?
MrViktoro27 1 week ago
@blastsummit Must be sad for you that he had more influence in that one speech than you ever will in your whole lifetime
jozzo6 1 week ago
@jozzo6 same for you
blastsummit 1 week ago
100% inheritance tax would result in everyone doing all they can to avoid it.
Personally i do advocate a high inheritance tax (finding the top of the IT laffer curve), so we can offset taxes such as income taxes and corporate taxes and people will find it easier and be more incentives to get richer during their lives.
N330AA 1 week ago
I say let's destroy the incentives to have wealth! Who's with me? Fuck the depression and the $4 Walmart Rx and the "gimme gimme gimme" culture. Like Kurt Vonnegut said Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia. " FUCK WEALTH and MISERS. Let's get more anarchy like in Fight Club, you greedy bastard humans.
superflyenglishvegan 1 week ago
If the left want to redistribute wealth, then they can start by giving me their money.
TheCoastalPirate 1 week ago
It's amazing how craven the left was even back then when talking about spending other people's money
wolfengheist 1 week ago
I always saw Milton Friedman as an extremely smart guy, maybe even genious smart under some definitions, who was payed to defend a certain position.
And he defended it very well. And was also payed very well.
Bulloxe4 1 week ago
"Person in India is genetically inferior to the person in america..." .... because of bad economy?! WHAT?! Does that idiot know what is GENETICS?
lifebarier 1 week ago
Napoleon Dynamite in College? GOSH!
MrSuperCollider 1 week ago 2
Anyone who thinks that a 100% inheritance tax is a good idea is crazy. How is that fair? Why would one family work hard, save, and accumulate wealth so another family can just do whatever they please because they know they will be taken care of? It wouldn't work. There's no incentive whatsoever to try to better yourself.
KCost82 2 weeks ago
@KCost82 it's not that it's crazy, it's just the message has been wildly disfigured. many people still think that the rich man is the factory owner who passes down his factory to his family, that's obviously far from the truth, but ppl don't seem to realize it.
so instead of us demanding stock options, we are demanding rolled heads
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
I fail to see how a 100% inheritance tax would destroy incentives. It would just change them. Now the incentive isn't to pass on wealth on to your children, but to pass on 'knowledge' of how to gain that wealth to them. If you can't do that, then hey I guess the 'cream' really doesn't rise to the top, now does it? The concept of material property is absurd. There is only one type of property anyone can truly 'own': one's own person or character. Another Friedman FAIL.
agentssith 2 weeks ago
@agentssith So because you don't comprehend his point on incentive destruction, you consider that Friedman's failure (Failure is the correct word, by the way. Fail is a verb. But at least you didn't throw an epic in front of it...)? Sounds to me like you FAIL.
burningm0nk 2 weeks ago
@agentssith
"just change them". So tell me, what would you do if you had a portfolio of 500k after a successful career at 75 after retirement, under your regime? You would spend absolutely all of it, in *frivolous consumption*. Why wouldn't you? Why invest at all? You are forced to bequeath the rest to the Treasury at gunpoint, why not buy a yacht? Think this through. Ofc if the concept "material property" is nonsensical to you, none of my other premises would be, so good day.
briano8713 2 weeks ago
God that kid is clueless! A 100% inheritance tax would mean that the government owns your wealth and you don't own shit. There's no freedom where there's no ownership of property, especially the ownership of your labor. Instead of crying about life, how about being grateful for your opportunity to work and earn some wealth, and stop trying to steal someone else's labor just because you don't want to work.
Vindigary 2 weeks ago
Milton Friedman's the man. It's kinda sad that the most fiscally conservative President in my lucid lifetime (I'm 20 at the moment) was Clinton.
MCulpa 2 weeks ago
I love Milton
libertyeconomics 2 weeks ago
I hate liberal pompous busybodies like that kid. I's none of his business if a kid is born poor in another country. Let him go help. And he wants to use it as an excuse to steal the money of the wealthy under the guise of morality. That's immoral and a ruse for his crimes that will serve his selfish interest for importance, power, and a slice of the pie. Liberals are too lazy or unskilled to earn money, so they go into politics to steal it legally. Shame on all of them. Pelosi is a crooked bitch
DexterHaven49 2 weeks ago
@DexterHaven49
As a opposed to Bush and the rest of the Republican crooks.
kingmafi6699 2 weeks ago
@DexterHaven49 And conservatives don't play the same game? Get real and get off your soap box.
Azraelseraphim 2 weeks ago
@Azraelseraphim a true conservative would also be fiscally conservative, how many true conservatives are around? ron paul to name one, try naming another lol
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@DexterHaven49 What tax payer pays you or your wife's salary?
mrgetrealpeople 2 weeks ago
@mrgetrealpeople I don't work for the government. I'm not a burden to the US taxpayer. I pay taxes instead of these net takers. Politicians and welfare cheats are net takers. They know how to vote themselves more money at the expense of people like me. It's criminal.
DexterHaven49 2 weeks ago
Ronald McDonald is a socialist. :(
Sage80 2 weeks ago
I am curious how Friedman would respond to one person in a society holding all the wealth out of 100 million. Because it would be more equitable to redistribute at that point because everyone would have money to buy and start up their own business thus creating a huge economic growth. Where if there was not redistribution 100 million people would still be poor, and thus no economic growth. Milton Friedman was a smart person shame that he is dead now.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12
1) you have to ask how did that person get that amount of wealth to begin with? you cant get rich without creating jobs and providing goods and services that people need to begin with unless it is done in an act of coercion.
2) what incentive does that tell to the rest of the population? no one would want to work to get to the same level as the rich person to begin with just so their hard work will be taken away by the state in the name of redistribution of wealth
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Like I said though once you redistribute people would have money and would be able to start their own business. Thus, people would be able to buy and sell. Keep in mind that if people were poor and then given money they would not care about a multi-billionaire getting his money redistributed. Why, because the average person knows that even if they start a business they would not be able to get over a billion $, thus they know that redistribution would not happen to them.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 another thing, you have completely ignored the thing i said in my first point, that rich man would not have accumulated all that wealth without providing jobs and goods and services that people likes to the rest of the population. you take away his wealth, your going to get rid of all the jobs he has created and the goods and service people like or even depends on just so the the greed of the many can be satisfied on the expense of the rich mans enslavement
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Well, to your first point that doesn't matter. Someone could in a completely free market buy property and rent it out. Thus, slowly over the years he could buy all the property in the country. Because society has no laws or regulation on monopolies he owns all land and every has to pay rent. He then jacks up rent thus, everyone becomes poor. In this situation he did not create a service that provided jobs. In fact in this situation landlord enslaved everyone through rent
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Here again you fall into the same trap. Monopolies are almost exclusively the creation of government intervention. They do not come into being as a result of the market (excepting very small cases - Bob has a monopoly on tire sales at Bob's Tire Mart). In fact, the presence of private property ownership has been a fundamental factor in the general ELIMINATION of poverty, not its increase.
Capitalism works.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Thirdly, you did not do a counter argument about incentive. I said that people like me would not be affected by the redistribution, thus I would gain prosperity and could start my own business, and still be motivated. Now, the context of the redistribution I think is important. People need to know that redistribution is because one person in society held 99% of the wealth. Given that people would know that they would not be taxed the same unless they had 99% of the wealth.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 The problem here is one of anecdote (and reliance upon the same extreme example that doesn't hold up). In the real world the argument is for the redistribution of wealth from a much larger group of people that control far, far less than 99% of the wealth. It inherently destroys the incentives of those being so heavily taxed (who got wealthy providing goods and services that people demand), but undermines the incentives for the rest of society, if not a particular individual.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 continue this via pm
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA if you can't pm me any more I would be happy to discuss it out in the open as well.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Would you care if the only multi-billionaire had his money redistributed when everyone is poor? Even if you do care people like me would not feel the lack of incentive, thus people like me would gain prosperity and would be able to start a business, and make money. The population at a whole knows that redistribution only happened in this case of ultra rich. How people believe that they can get all the wealth in the country? Thus, people still have incentive
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12
first of all, that called stealing. all forms of taxation is stealing. also stealing is a form of enslavement since money is time and work put in by the owner of that money ..... you steal his money against his will, you basically enslave the men.
are you telling me that just because a person is is better off than the rest of the population, your going to discriminate against him to become the slave of the society?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA Secondly, in society we pay taxes for services that the private sector could not make a profit off of, such as: roads, police, military, etc. Thus, you pay taxes to live in society. If you don't pay taxes it is consider stealing from society because you are using roads, and police service that other people's tax dollars are going to. So, taxation is not stealing. Taxation is not a form of enslavement. Taxation is for goods and services that is for the public gets to enjoy
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 i respect your opinion as an individual about redistribution and taxation and i would not dream of anything to harm you because of your opinions. however, would you grant me the same respect that ive given you on the matter?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 2 weeks ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA I will await your response via pm. I look forward to this debate.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Vassili taxation is force regardless, but it is a necessary evil, no one questions this. however the more you pay for police the more you empower them correct?
taxation is not for the public, its for the govt to continue running
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Friedman's argument is that you should not redistribute because everyone else in society would not have incentive. However, I said that is a flawed logic because I would still have incentive. Friedman says nothing about taxation being "evil" or wrong. You clearly have a medieval view on taxes. Without taxes you would not have a military. If you want you can live in the wild where other nations can attack you.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 i never said i am against taxes, and neither did friedman from any of his lectures. the goal here is to understand incentive on a large scale. you are misrepresenting the entire debate. you went from arguing the morality of taxes to arguing the needs.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Okay, for one you guys started talking about the morality of taxes. Saying that taxes is wrong and forceful. Second, taxes are required to live in a society, but yet you seem to hold the view that they are wrong in the sense that it is forced. However, if you don't want to pay taxes you don't have to live here that is your choice, thus it is not forced. You always have a choice. Third, you still haven't countered my argument about incentive after taxing someone that has 99% of wealth
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 yessir. lol actually you are right ppl who dont want to pay island hop correct? yes. this costs us big time revenue.
let me explain this, it's my fault, we DO think taxes are immoral and forceful, however we understand what they are needed for and when, there are no perfect choices, but there are ways to narrow the choices from the worst to the least worst, you see the difference.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 we need taxes, that's undeniable at this point in our history, however by taxing 1% of the population we are gambling on the idea that they will stick around to get taxed, which they won't. best example people moving from NYS to Florida to avoid income tax. now think about this on a global scale my friend
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 furthermore you will never generate the revenue you want without taxing the larger % of the population which is 119 million americans making over 47k. in order to provide these ppl with benefits you need to tax them collectively at over 40%, what happens then, is that some ppl benefit, some ppl suffer, but the paychecks are still cut in half. I hope i helped clarify, and i do apologize if i sounded like a dick
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 so again 1) ppl already move both their corperations and their income overseas, and across states 2) nobody wants their investment being taken due to death, or sickness, the incentive of creation would not be lost, but it would be withheld from US
3) while this is all theory, we use this theory to make best choices out of the worst choices.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey I am arguing directly against friedman's point of taxation. He says that taxation for the wealthy will "ONLY" discourage the rest of the population from wanting to get wealthy also. I pointed out that this principle is erroneous based off the fact that if someone had 99% of the wealth the society would be worse off, and poor. At this point society would tax anyone that held 99% of the wealth, thus people would not have to fear taxation when they became rich.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 it's not a faulty argument if you understand that the ppl who get taxes are family owned millionaires and not just corporations. the incentive to own and become rich diminishes when you already get the basics from your govt. that is seen clearly in countries with large socialist rule.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Secondly, talking about taxes in a normal scenario you do have to tax the average person. But, the problem that is playing out in America is that the wealthy are starting to control the wealth. The top 1% of rich people own 42% of the Financial Wealth in the U.S. If you are not intrigued by that fact alone you still have to wonder about at what point can the top 1% own before you are uncomfortable with it, 50%, 60%, 80%?
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 the top earners already pay 35% plus 8-10% state, and wait there is more...
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Like I said if you are paying 35% taxes you have a terrible accountant and should get a better jew. j/k. But seriously, you have to get a better accountant if you are paying 35%. WE made enough tax loop holes for them. Look at Obama he paid less than 35%, and Mitt paid what was it less than 20% for his taxes. You are stupid if you are paying taxes at 35%, thus the real tax rate in the US for the rich is not 35%
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 The problem is with the definition of "control". In fact, that 1% changes radically over time and income mobility is so robust in the US that nearly a third of those n the poorest 20% will eventually be in the wealthiest 20%. This is because overwhelmingly, the wealth of the top 1% is EARNED over a lifetime of productive activity. To undermine them is to undermine the activities that got them there.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Thirdly, if you want to talk about taxation in practice I imagine that you would argue that if everyone in America was taxed 50% of their pay all the wealthy people would leave? That is what you are saying with rich people right now that only pay 25% taxes. So, according to your argument that people will leave to a country with less tax we would conclude that Europe would have no one then. Europe has 50% taxes yet they have a stronger economy than the US.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 are you denying that europeans are not flocking virtually everywhere, austraila, New Zealand, and the US. how about their corperations. hooooly cow how they outsource. on top of that Europe DOES NOT have 50% taxes, you are talking about particular countries. Greece for example has huge taxes, but no one pais LOL!
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Well for one the highest taxes in the world for individual taxes are in Europe. Period. If you want to talk about migration of individuals they why again is Europe have a better economy than the US? If you want to argue about quality of life, who cares about the poor people. I believe in a market system and if GDP is up that means you have a better system than the US. Economic GDP is all that matters because that means people are rich in your country. I would rather have a higher GDP
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Let me give you examples of europe's tax rates. Belgium over 53%, Germany 50%, France 50%, Sweden over 45%, Italy 45%, Turkey 43%, Denmark low 40%
So, yeah the only two places that have high GDP is US, and EURO. So, Europe workers can go else where, and same for the US but the rest of the world is third world compare to these two. That is why people for the most part stay in US and Europe. Sure euro has migration during recession but study show that they always come back afterwards
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 holy cow my friend, i think i like you but do you not see the contradiction in your own analysis here? Europeans generally migrate and then come back, that speaks volumes when we discuss taxes. Europeans do come back to their half-broken system, but make no mistake about it they still migrate here, why? it's not war anymore. what is it? they want more money. they want to keep their money, in short the best of all worlds. but they piggy bank on us.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Indeed, but migration happen because of a recession, which this one was caused by the US. Thus, people in euro are not leaving because of taxation they are leaving because of a recession. The taxation and recession are two different things. According to some UK think tank studies (I can't argue how valid they are, or which political leanings they had) migration of workers happens most often during a recession and it's in search of a job.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 the US wasn't solely responsible whatsoever, ever hear of banks like Soverign (Spain) HSBC. IMF for example lol.
secondly ppl migrate for work and surprisingly countries that have lower taxes, allow faster start ups and have lower salary requirements provide work. Go try to find a job in denmark, france, spain, or even Canada. you just proved the entire issue of taxes and over-regulation. the two are inclusive. and lead to serious issues.
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Also, a point on the recession. The US recession was caused because of overleveraging of US companies. This was because US companies didn't have gov regulation to stop them from taking on too much risk. This high risk caused a bubble and almost destroyed the whole fin system because of lack of gov! According to the study people don't migrate because of lower taxes they only migrate to places that have jobs. Look at France universal healthcare high tax, yet 4th in the world for econ
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 when you say destroyed the whole financial system you are making an erroneaous staement, all that would have happened is the large banks would have to collapse and be bought out by smaller banks. there would be a feeding frenzy for these sharks, meanwhile the only homeowners that would be at risk are the ones who made terrible decisions. the recovery wouldn't take too long as the smaller banks would simply jump on the opportunity.
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey For starters the whole financial system would have fallen. Why? Because you had all the banks inter-loaning to each other. The shadow banking industry, or better know as hedgefunds, or MMF the ones unregulated by the feds were taking on too much risk. When you had Bear Stearns, and other unreg companies go bankrupt they pulled their money from other banks to cover their loss. Since other banks reserve requirements where so low you had a cascade of bank failures.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 final point. and i think i said this before. you need to understand WHY it is we argue against taxes looking at historical data and what is accomplished on a low tax system. You cannot refute this, you will not be able too. So yes we need revenue for our govt to be up kept. but when we pay a tax to the EPA and they systematically shut down projects that could provide work, and relief, then the culprit is the funding of the EPA. do you see?
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 and when we provide tax dollars to a terrible healthcare system, or public school system, only to see the private sector making all the results and the public sector with nearly 5x more money in it's HC programs one has to ask himself WTF?! lol
you have to ask yourself how can this revenue be contained, and how can it be dispersed honestly in a large 50 state federal govt?
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Secondly, medicare, medicaid, and social security are complete socialist programs. Meaning that they are run 100% by the gov. If you want to reduce taxes reduce all three programs. Let's look at the facts if you add all three programs, and military, plus the net interest it all adds up to 68% of the fed budget or $2.4 trillion. The rest of the fed programs ie public schools are a tiny % of the budget. So, you can ignore all other gov programs because the cost is a small % of budget
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 and the market fixes itself far faster than the govt is able to. it's just a matter of organic movment as opposed to rigid. an organic govt can never exist for obvious reasons
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Markets often don't fix themselves faster. How can I say that? Look at the Great Depression for one. If you don't believe that then look at the lost decade of Japan. No gov intervention and it lasted 10 yrs of slow growth.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Thirdly, think about those socialist programs medicare, medicaid, and social security. Try talking to anyone on voting day in the republican party to cut any one of those three, and you will find that people love those programs. By def all three programs are complete socialist/communist, but the republican people want social security, they want medicare, and they want medicaid. Why? because it is a market failure in this society and everyone wants the gov to fix the market failure
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 absolutely. they are popular but that doesn't mean are right. the HC market never failed my friend, it was taken over. and you are 100% right no one wants them gone not repubs not dems, but again they are not legit programs. they suck countries dry. fixing a market failure is entirely different then taking over the market
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey You know what, I'm tired of explaining economics w/500 characters at a time. I have an economic degree and I can't take trying to explain everything in broke small paragraph messages. 2008 recession just do some google search I'm sure you can piece it together yourself w/o my help
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 one point you made about the market not providing social security as being a market failure. when social security first came about it was a completely new concept and there was never a market for it. its not that the free market failed but that the concept of social security was new and the gov. jumped on it first. in todays society a privatised social security equivalent would work.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Actually, Soc Sec was made because of the biggest market failure, which was the savings for older people and unemployment. The market failure was older people losing all their saving/retirement money when the free market crashed. Before 1935, people had to invest in their retirement on their own, and this resulted in mass poverty among old people, this is market failure I am talking about. The private sector didn't guarantee retirement money, thus a lot of people became poor.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 but the concept of a retirement plan that people payed into was new, so what i mean is that the Market for such a plan was entirely new and that a privatised social security plan would work even better. and its hardly a market failure because the great depression was greatly deepened by the government policies ;New Deal' and that made things far worse, and maybe look into the Feds hand in starting the Depression.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 First off you are confusing a couple of different issues here. The government program you are talking about that was gov reg to help poor people have access to loans was done with gov guarantee backing done in a limited fashion. Private companies decided to take on this sub prime risk fully knowing that they couldn't have gov backing if default happened. The gov didn't didn't reg the market because republicans hate gov regulation. They want the market to be as free as possible
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 About retirement plans: The concept of retirement plans was not new. Before SS, people had to invest in the market for their own retirement plan. This would sometimes pay out, but in a recession esp like the great depression everyone lost their retirement money that they had invested. Thus, the gov said the market is consistently causing poverty among old people. That is a problem in society, and consider a market failure when you have massive poverty.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Also, you clearly don't understand econ if you think that the gov prolonged the recession. Look at the lost decade of japan, they did no gov intention and for 10 years had slow growth and a second recession during that time. Here is the thing in the long run the market will fix it's self, but it might take 10-15 years to heal from the massive blow. Gov can hire people, thus increase jobs, etc to speed up the recovery.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Once, again I know what you are trying to argue with gov causing worse recession, but what you are arguing is Austrian school of economics. I can almost guarantee you haven't study economics let alone Austrian school of economics. Now, I have an economic degree, which means I have studied this extensively and what you are saying simply isn't accurate. I would start with Irving Fisher debt deflation paper. It's a quick read, a bit boring but useful.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 and you talking about the housing bubble as if there wasnt enough gov. involved. dont forget to take into account fannie and freddie, and also the regulation that was passed forcing banks to approve those subprime loans. that there was at the heart of it. the Federal Reserve Bank was also a culprit, with the easy credit and low interest rates. remember in a free market there would be no freddie and fannie, no FED, cont....
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 and no politicians trying to get reelected, with the mantra 'a home for every american' by dabbling in the market. Capitalism works, not crony capitalism, or socialism. the US is more socialist than anything.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 To your second post the sub prime mortgages was created because the gov regulated prime mortgages in the banking industry. The hedgefunds companies started up to get away from reg from the gov so they could take on riskier loans like sub prime. So, yes the gov was involved and caused it because companies would not have started hedgefunds that acted like banks if the gov didn't reg. But as we can see that reg was in place to stop too much risk that caused the 2008 crash.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Lastly, I would like to point out again that Most of the sub prime lending was from private industry with 84%.of the sub-prime loans. GSE's like Fannie and Freddie had gov backing and reg, however, other companies that didn't have gov reg wanted in on the subprime market, and they are the ones that caused the huge bubble. It was no regulation that caused companies that didn't have gov oversight or backing that took on the risk, hoping for large profits, that caused the bubble.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 i agree with you in that people got too greedy and that the hedge fund companies overleveraged to the hilt, but before all this malinvestment, and before this greed was started, it was incentivised by the government, the bubble was started by government policy and fed policy, and once the bubble started everyone jumped aboard. people make mistakes but what im trying to say is that the bubble wouldn't of even been there without government.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 and by government policy i mean the mandate to supply mortages to everyone, and also the fed policy with low interest rates. these combined to give the effect of a subsidized housing market and as with anything subsidized it became more lucrative and expensive and that is why so many people got into the market.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 and you have to wonder, if the government was so adamant about regulating the housing market, then why were subprime mortgages allowed? why were the hedgefunds allowed to buy mortgages? it was because the bubble was what the government wanted, this boom was what the government wanted, remember that during the bubble no one in government even knew that it was a bubble, they thought that it was good for the economy, when they were obviously wrong.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 you know i already agreed with you on the greed part lol, but like i said the lending practices were not sound, and it started with fannie and freddie. do you think that people who dont have jobs need a 2 or 300,000 dollar house? thats insane, and now the government is left all this debt. trillions of it. it doesnt matter if they are backed by fannie and freddie, as soon as the government backs any leveraging that the banks do, contingency liabilities aremade
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 backing all those homes was a bad idea, look at the debt crisis, it only got worse from the bubble, which while being made bigger by the greed of wallstreet, was facilitated from start to finish by the government and the fed. if you dont believe me go listen to any austrian economist, that school as a whole, pretty much predicted the bubble and the ongoing recession.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Okay, once again, the gov didn't back any of the companies on sub prime. Frannie and Freddie are a GSE that is gov reg. The other companies are private and did not have gov backing. What happened the other companies started defaulting and the Fed's said they couldn't bail them out at the start because they were not under Fed reg, thus because they were not reg they did not have the Fed's bailout. However, we all know what happened next the problem became known as too big to fail
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 i understand that the private companies didn't have gov. backing, i totally get that, im singling out freddie and fannie and their liabilities. i understand what happened during the crisis, ive spent probably 70 or 80 hrs researching it. i still have lots to uncover about it, but i definitely get the gist of it.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 and if you understand the austrian business cycle, how easy credit and artificially low interest rates cause people to take on too much risk and to put their money into areas that dont warrant their investment. you would also see how government subsidizing (which is what essentially happened) causes the misallocation of resources. and the bust that follows must be market driven because all those resources must be reallocated into the right sectors.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Here is the thing then if you know that the private sector didn't have backing. It is their fault for not complying with regulation to get Fed bailouts. For example, reserve requirements is one form of reg that companies did adhere to. If you take on too much risk w/o a high enough reserve requirement then when shit hits the fan like it did your company can sit back and deal with it. But companies hate reserve because that is profit loss.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 *I mean reserve requirements is one form of reg that companies *didn't* adhere to
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Simply saying low interest and easy access is the problem is simplifying interest. It's an erroneous statement. To explain how it effects the money market, and others takes to long
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 The thing is with Freddie and Fannie it was created knowing that it was going to have problems, which is why the gov backed them. It was essentially a social program for the most vulnerable citizens. Freddie and Fannie itself couldn't cause the housing bubble simply put. They had higher reg than private sector, and they are small compared to the rest of the market. One company could not do the damage of an entire private sector so to say Freddie and Fannie was behind it is wrong
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 if fannie and freddie was knowingly going to have problems then why create them? why not dump more money into low income housing? whats the point in giving a teaser rate on a quarter million dollar house then when the rate changes or the mortgage resets, having an unsustainable amount of defaults?
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 i guess im not fighting against the reg of fannie and freddie, just against their existence, because regardless whether the bubble existed or not those entities continued right to the last day making bad decisions and accumulated too much debt and mbs's that it went through conservatorship. its a huge money pit with no hope for success.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 if Fannie and Freddie were created knowing that there was going to be problems. then that seems like having the number of defaults that they had was allowable, then why take action? why conservatorship? because they had failed, had a failed policy and the gov realized it.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 Fannie's total assets to capital (leverage ratio) was about 20:1, while Freddie's was about 70:1. These numbers increase significantly if one includes all of the mortgage-backed assets they guaranteed. These ratios are considerably higher than investment banks, which leverage around 30:1. sounds like a failed policy to me, they over leveraged even more than the investment banks lol
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 and yes i study the austrian school of thought, ive studied some of Smith's, Hayek's, Mises, and even Friedman's work. but i will read up on that paper, because im always open minded and willing to learn something.
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
@manofbusiness91 I don't mean to be a dick well not a complete dick. But, when I hear someone say they studied austrian school of econ, I think did they take some econ classes to study it? Or, did they just go onto the web and read some interesting articles on it, and watch some youtube of academics talking for 5 min. When I say I studied econ I mean I had to take adv calculus just to understand some classes I took. So, I always feel like its not the same when people say they studied econ indep
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 im in the process of taking some economic courses as part of my bachelor's of commerce, but i sincerely believe in the austrian school of thought, mostly because of its soundness and the fact that im a libertarian and believe in a limited government. im 20 and am still taking my courses tho, and why would you need adv calculus for economics? its not like engineering or anything, i thought actuary and statistics would suffice?
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
Econ uses a lot of math models to prove theories. You have to have strong understanding of math for some of the micro models. Also, Adv Econometrics requires and uses heavy amounts of calculus.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 and id also like to say that the companies that went into the risky business, buying those mortgage backed securities and doing all that credit swapping without getting downgraded by moody's, went in at their own peril. the market is wonderful in that it rewards good decisions and punishes poor ones. except of course when they get bailed out!! ( another example of government interference in the market)
manofbusiness91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manofbusiness91 Secondly, the gov didn't force any private sector companies to buy sub prime, that was done with complete greed on the private sector behalf. Now, the gov started with the program that is sub prime to help poor people get housing only because the banks were denying poor people access. Private sector didn't have to follow suite in this risky business. But, that is what you get in a free market. Companies do what they want. That is why you need some reg.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Lastly, I understand that their has always been people that have hated taxes. But, we live in a society today, and to live in society you need taxes. On top of which as a society we see market failures due to the free market, and society has decided after feeling the effects of the free market they want safety nets put in place. Market failures is undesirable to society, and that is why we have such programs in the gov. We hope to reduce the damage the free market has done to us
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 we never had a free market sir you dont seem to belive this. for some reason you have this notion that the banks did whatever whenever. it's quite different.
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey No one has a complete free market, nor does anyone ever have complete communism. Because both have too many problems when they are complete one way or the other. But, your point about banks doing whatever whenever can be argued to some extent. Bank regulations were non existent at the turn of the century or prior to that. Banks had no reserve requirements, they had no limit on how much they could lend out. For the most part they were free to do whatever they wanted.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 and in terms of 1st world migration, companies migrate to the US for one reason alone, it still is cheaper than Europe. HOWEVER take a loot at eastern europe and the middle east. they have a very low corperate tax, take a look at the pacfic Rim, SHOCKING as it may seem they are pulling buisness in LIKE CRAAAAZY.
not for cheap labor , but because profits will be easier to keep.
good day Vassili. Are you from Ukraine, Belarus, Russia?
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey Well, first off people don't migrate as much when the econ is doing well. So, that points out that recession drives migration not taxation. I understand your argument against the EPA, but we have health laws to keep ourselves safe from businesses. Without such safety nets people would get cancer, or sick from corporations that have found a cheaper way to make a product. I for one want protection from corporations that clear cut trees away and destroys and pollutes the environment.
VassiliZaitsev12 1 week ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Two problems, you are confusing the effective tax rate with the marginal (statutory) tax rate, when only the latter matters economically. Second, tax flight is a fully demonstrated phenomenon. And third, the assertion about stronger European economies suffers only from the problem that it is completely inaccurate. Only Norway (oil exports) and the tiny banking enclaves of Luxembourg and Lichtenstein have a higher standard of living that the US.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey PS I said 25% taxes because I work for the IRS and out of all the millionaires tax returns that I have processed not a single one paid the 35% tax rate. So, I took the average of what I saw.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 US census reports 32,000 individuals in 08 who made over 1 million dollars paid income tax returns. this is a matter of facts and not personal experience.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@UpalKashey Your US census reports says that they paid income tax returns. But that is all you wrote. If you are paying 35% tax rate you have a bad accountant period. The tax system has so many loop holes. Even republicans think the tax system is terrible for the rich they see too many loop holes also. Jon Huntsman argued to redo the tax system to get rid of the tax loops.
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Uh, no. That taxes are taken by force is simply a fact. Try not paying them and see what happens. If you have suggestions about where one might live without paying taxes.... Nevertheless, the nature of government is force and no choice is given as to whether one can choose not to pay for certain services. That one may (theoretically) leave has no bearing on the nature of the tax transaction.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Alas, it is your own logica that is flawed. Friedman is NOT arguing that every INDIVIDUAL in society "would not have incentive" but rather that, IN THE AGGREGATE the incentives would be reduced. He doesn't argue that all incentive will be eliminated but that the advantageous incentives are seriously undermined (as historical evidence demonstrates).
And you might look into the research on private security systems.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 To the contrary, people pay taxes to pay for things that the state arbitrarily decides are a monopoly. Private roads have historcally been very successful (same with schools, postal services, etc.) The actions of the military, for that matter, have been extremely controversial. Your argument only holds if real benefit can be demonstrated on the whole for the services paid for with taxes. And that point is EASILY debated.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 Again, you proceed from false premises - that a) it would be possible for someone to control "all" the wealth and b) it would be necessary for the state to engage in redistribution in order for others to obtain sufficient wealth. The very skills of the individuals of the remaider of society do not only represent a form of wealth but attract the investment that increases wealth for everyone. The problem you suggest is a red herring.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
So, according to Milton Friedman if you can find a way to redistribute wealth wile maintaining incentive it would be okay. Milton argues that there is no way possible to do the two. I think this is coming down to principle. If one person held all the wealth in a society of 100 mill according to friedman you should not redistribute wealth because the other 100 mill people would not have incentive. This argument of course is absurd, thus in this case we have redistribution without taking incentive
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 you aren't understanding this at all are you. no offense sir.
but if someone has 100 million dollars they won't hold onto it. they have accumulated regardless, and will use it. what will they use it on. how will they get the product that they want?
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 i'm sorry i shouldnt have started the debate that way. but follow through on this philosophy. if you tax the savings of a family that is incredibly rich, what happens when the % of rich families decrease. what would that tax pay for.
UpalKashey 2 weeks ago
@VassiliZaitsev12 you don't understand what he is talking about at all. the point is that there would be no incentive for someone to make money because its just going to be redistributed anyway
fifaps3gaming 2 weeks ago
@fifaps3gaming Once again, you completely ignored what I SAID. I SAID THAT REDISTRIBUTION WOULD HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE HAS A 99% OF THE WEALTH, THUS IN THIS SITUATION EVERYONE IN SOCIETY WOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAXED UNLESS THEY CONTROLLED 99% OF THE WEALTH. THUS, INCENTIVE WOULD STILL BE AROUND, WHICH FRIEDMAN SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE! SO WHY DON'T YOU READ WHAT I WROTE, AND RESPOND TO THAT! YOU ARE ARGUING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID NOT MY POINTS
VassiliZaitsev12 2 weeks ago