The economic theory he's quoting isn't "new, about 30 years old", actually it's the far older economic theory, ie' right back to Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes and up until that asshole Milton Freedman came along was pretty much *the* theory of macro economics. Not co-incidentally it's since the embrace of supply side that the classes have again divided and things have increasingly turned to crap. The theory of "give everything to the rich" (ie' supply side) is crap. It's proven.
For the data I'd suggest you start by finding some marxist socialists and buy a digest of the Daas Capital, Economics of the Madhouse by Chris Harman is a good one.
It's remarkable how accurate the predictions are, unfortunately it's a bit dense, so in the name of updated context and clarification I recommend a digest, preferably purchased from the people who know marx best. I'm not a Marxist btw, but marxist economic theory is a valuable tool.
As for your question of where is the proof, that's a little harder and, as you've probably guessed, I can't point to one smoking gun or "Ah Haa!" moment. And that's why I suggested you have a look at an econimic theory that actually makes sense of how the world really works. I think that once you've got the data in front of you and can hold it up to comparison with the establishment view you'll find the "proof" within your own life experience, as I did and as I continue to do.
You're kidding right? Why would I do that if austrians explain all the things around me so simply and truthfully? I tried reading Marx - no can do, complete nonsence.
Go:
"What About Money Causes Economic Crises?" with Peter Schiff - Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 3/3
Go:
The Free Market: Fallacies and Facts | Thomas E. Woods, Jr
All you need to look at is U6 Unemployment . . . . . stop listening to "Experts" . . . . look on the streets . . . . . how about all those homeless people that seem to keep growing from city to city? . . . . that's reality.
Here down in Belmont Shore Ca., we're seeing more and more businesses close . . . and this is a "desirable beach town" located in Long Beach city.
So far as defense industry cuts . . . . it's beautiful to see . . . . unfortunately, it took a global depression to wise up.
Notice he mentions the capital gains tax but not the personal income tax. If a person has $300,000 salary, then they pay 35% income taxes. If they sell an asset, then they pay 15% capital gains tax. Rich capitalists do pay more taxes.
@saolesaole Warren Buffet makes $600,000 a year in salary. His taxes as a percentage are lower than his secretary, because the vast majority of his income is capital gains. This is true of a lot of very rich people, even those who work for a living. (I don't count Paris Hilton in that group.) CEOs get a large portion of their income in stock options and pay 15% tax instead of 35%.
@BrotherAlpha Warren Buffett's salary is, according Forbes, $100,000. That places him in the 28% tax bracket. It is doubtful his secretary makes more than $100,000. And, according to Yahoo Finance, he hasn't exercised any other compensations, so he pays 28% in personal income taxes.
@BrotherAlpha Your wording is ambiguous. What does the phrase “a lot” of very rich people mean? If Warren Buffett is included in that “a lot,” then “a lot” of rich people pay more taxes. What does a “large portion” of CEOs’ income mean? As I see it, a large portion of CEOs’ income still puts them in the 28% tax bracket or higher before they exercise stock options and other compensations.
That guy is incredibly deceptive. People who own investments and have high incomes pay taxes twice. The sell of person's investments means he or she pays capital gains tax and income tax if the sell of an investment pushes his or her income higher.
@BrotherAlpha Actually, that depends. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income for those in the 25% tax bracket and higher. Your personal income does play a part in whether you pay 15% capital gains tax or no capital gains tax at all.
and of course once those 'new hires' at taco bell get laid off in a few months from their 34 hour a week min wage job w no benes. they will not qualify for unemployment so they are technically not unemployment! ubama and his boys sure know how to work these bs figures
I've been wondering about this for the last 6 months. The label of "job creator" that usually gets placed on CEOs/entrepreneurs just seems absurd to me. I'm no economist nor am I studying it (I suck at finances), but it would seem to me that saying that corporate owners and deregulation and such are the primary or only economic "factors" that create jobs seems far too simplistic. Not only does that seem to embrace laissez-faire capitalism, but it ignores consumer activity.
@BrotherAlpha To get that car built someone has to be paid. When a company comes into existence, workers are paid before the owners are. The owners have to wait until the company is profitable first before they can receive a salary. The purchase of the plant and capital equipment to make the products come first. Then the employees and the customers. The order of events is never considered when these topics come up.
@saolesaole "The purchase of the plant and capital equipment to make the products come first."
They won't build the plant unless they think they can sell the car. It doesn't matter how cheap the labor is. It doesn't matter how weak environmental regulations are. It doesn't matter how low the taxes are. If they don't think they can sell the products, they won't make them.
Because of this, the best way to boost the economy is to strengthen the middle-class.
Our expectations have been reduced so much that job growth numbers that would have looked weak under Bill Clinton are now being hailed by some as a sign that the economy has turned around.
soon they will brainwash people into thanking the overlords for being enslaved, and paying the taxes that make enslavement possible."slavery is freedom" "War is peace" Ingnorance is knowledge" 1984!
It is all about power and control. Power is and has always been corruptive. The numbers don't lie. Bottome line, you can bullshit some of the people most of the time, but you can't bullshit alll of the peiople any of the time. Let's grab the bull by the horns and take our country back, or whats left of it anyway.
im 38 year old laborer and other than my recent unemployment ive only been unemployed for a total of about 1-2 years since i was 15. i was working full time by the age of 16 or 17 so i dont think i qualify as lazy.employers say either over or under qualified or we dont pay what your accustomed to making so we cant see you staying and we need someone long term.ive sold everything of value and should be homeless soon if things dont change.i think there is more to the problem than just the #of jobs
The economic theory he's quoting isn't "new, about 30 years old", actually it's the far older economic theory, ie' right back to Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes and up until that asshole Milton Freedman came along was pretty much *the* theory of macro economics. Not co-incidentally it's since the embrace of supply side that the classes have again divided and things have increasingly turned to crap. The theory of "give everything to the rich" (ie' supply side) is crap. It's proven.
tangent272 2 months ago
@tangent272
Where? Convert me I am a voluntarist. Where?
pipem4n 1 month ago
@pipem4n
For the data I'd suggest you start by finding some marxist socialists and buy a digest of the Daas Capital, Economics of the Madhouse by Chris Harman is a good one.
It's remarkable how accurate the predictions are, unfortunately it's a bit dense, so in the name of updated context and clarification I recommend a digest, preferably purchased from the people who know marx best. I'm not a Marxist btw, but marxist economic theory is a valuable tool.
tangent272 1 month ago
@tangent272
As for your question of where is the proof, that's a little harder and, as you've probably guessed, I can't point to one smoking gun or "Ah Haa!" moment. And that's why I suggested you have a look at an econimic theory that actually makes sense of how the world really works. I think that once you've got the data in front of you and can hold it up to comparison with the establishment view you'll find the "proof" within your own life experience, as I did and as I continue to do.
tangent272 1 month ago
@tangent272
You're kidding right? Why would I do that if austrians explain all the things around me so simply and truthfully? I tried reading Marx - no can do, complete nonsence.
Go:
"What About Money Causes Economic Crises?" with Peter Schiff - Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 3/3
Go:
The Free Market: Fallacies and Facts | Thomas E. Woods, Jr
Go go go:
mises.org
pipem4n 1 month ago
All you need to look at is U6 Unemployment . . . . . stop listening to "Experts" . . . . look on the streets . . . . . how about all those homeless people that seem to keep growing from city to city? . . . . that's reality.
Here down in Belmont Shore Ca., we're seeing more and more businesses close . . . and this is a "desirable beach town" located in Long Beach city.
So far as defense industry cuts . . . . it's beautiful to see . . . . unfortunately, it took a global depression to wise up.
theroilsoil 2 months ago
This was a SUPER great interview! This guy was SUPER on-the-mark!
aaronpolitical 2 months ago
Trickle down economics has failed.
avideogameplayer 2 months ago 4
Notice he mentions the capital gains tax but not the personal income tax. If a person has $300,000 salary, then they pay 35% income taxes. If they sell an asset, then they pay 15% capital gains tax. Rich capitalists do pay more taxes.
saolesaole 2 months ago
@saolesaole Warren Buffet makes $600,000 a year in salary. His taxes as a percentage are lower than his secretary, because the vast majority of his income is capital gains. This is true of a lot of very rich people, even those who work for a living. (I don't count Paris Hilton in that group.) CEOs get a large portion of their income in stock options and pay 15% tax instead of 35%.
BrotherAlpha 2 months ago
@BrotherAlpha Warren Buffett's salary is, according Forbes, $100,000. That places him in the 28% tax bracket. It is doubtful his secretary makes more than $100,000. And, according to Yahoo Finance, he hasn't exercised any other compensations, so he pays 28% in personal income taxes.
saolesaole 2 months ago
@BrotherAlpha Your wording is ambiguous. What does the phrase “a lot” of very rich people mean? If Warren Buffett is included in that “a lot,” then “a lot” of rich people pay more taxes. What does a “large portion” of CEOs’ income mean? As I see it, a large portion of CEOs’ income still puts them in the 28% tax bracket or higher before they exercise stock options and other compensations.
saolesaole 2 months ago
That guy is incredibly deceptive. People who own investments and have high incomes pay taxes twice. The sell of person's investments means he or she pays capital gains tax and income tax if the sell of an investment pushes his or her income higher.
saolesaole 2 months ago
@saolesaole You are wrong. That's not how it works. Capital gains is not taxed as income, but separately at a lower rate.
BrotherAlpha 2 months ago
@BrotherAlpha Actually, that depends. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income for those in the 25% tax bracket and higher. Your personal income does play a part in whether you pay 15% capital gains tax or no capital gains tax at all.
saolesaole 2 months ago
Incredible interview!
brainfoodlunch 2 months ago
and of course once those 'new hires' at taco bell get laid off in a few months from their 34 hour a week min wage job w no benes. they will not qualify for unemployment so they are technically not unemployment! ubama and his boys sure know how to work these bs figures
TheMasterofrevenge 2 months ago
I've been wondering about this for the last 6 months. The label of "job creator" that usually gets placed on CEOs/entrepreneurs just seems absurd to me. I'm no economist nor am I studying it (I suck at finances), but it would seem to me that saying that corporate owners and deregulation and such are the primary or only economic "factors" that create jobs seems far too simplistic. Not only does that seem to embrace laissez-faire capitalism, but it ignores consumer activity.
DasherFlame9 2 months ago
I dont believe in job creationism. Sounds socialistical.
elitemathlete 2 months ago
As I've said it many times before, GM doesn't create jobs by building cars. The middle class creates jobs by buying cars.
BrotherAlpha 2 months ago
@BrotherAlpha To get that car built someone has to be paid. When a company comes into existence, workers are paid before the owners are. The owners have to wait until the company is profitable first before they can receive a salary. The purchase of the plant and capital equipment to make the products come first. Then the employees and the customers. The order of events is never considered when these topics come up.
saolesaole 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saolesaole "The purchase of the plant and capital equipment to make the products come first."
They won't build the plant unless they think they can sell the car. It doesn't matter how cheap the labor is. It doesn't matter how weak environmental regulations are. It doesn't matter how low the taxes are. If they don't think they can sell the products, they won't make them.
Because of this, the best way to boost the economy is to strengthen the middle-class.
BrotherAlpha 2 months ago
Our expectations have been reduced so much that job growth numbers that would have looked weak under Bill Clinton are now being hailed by some as a sign that the economy has turned around.
BrotherAlpha 2 months ago
One word: Cooperatives
TealAlloy 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAlyonaShow
200,000 jobs created versus 35 million unemployed Americans. Wow what a great job our government is doing (sarcasm btw)
Medewtysenu 2 months ago
YNOT100026 tell em!!!!
cosigna103 2 months ago
Funny how when Congress is deadlocked and "can't get anything done", the unemployment rate starts falling. Hey, Government, do more of that!
chrlpolk 2 months ago
soon they will brainwash people into thanking the overlords for being enslaved, and paying the taxes that make enslavement possible."slavery is freedom" "War is peace" Ingnorance is knowledge" 1984!
YNOT100026 2 months ago
It is all about power and control. Power is and has always been corruptive. The numbers don't lie. Bottome line, you can bullshit some of the people most of the time, but you can't bullshit alll of the peiople any of the time. Let's grab the bull by the horns and take our country back, or whats left of it anyway.
007HubbaBubba 2 months ago
im 38 year old laborer and other than my recent unemployment ive only been unemployed for a total of about 1-2 years since i was 15. i was working full time by the age of 16 or 17 so i dont think i qualify as lazy.employers say either over or under qualified or we dont pay what your accustomed to making so we cant see you staying and we need someone long term.ive sold everything of value and should be homeless soon if things dont change.i think there is more to the problem than just the #of jobs
merrick926 2 months ago 8
@merrick926 No shit. When I was a teenager I could earn 2 ounces of silver per hour. Now they expect me to work a full day for the same amount.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 months ago
@merrick926
You are 100% correct, and we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg . . . . . it get's far, far
worse from this point forward.
theroilsoil 2 months ago
And what about the ones that have have expired their unemployment benefits and are not even inluded in the numbers being supported?
Erik22552 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Jewish Republican Coalition didn't invite Ron Paul to its debate because Ron Paul refuses to send Americans to war & death for Israel
Vote Ron Paul.
Stevie68000 2 months ago