The question being asked of 'what value do they offer to us [now that they're retired]' and 'why can't they enact measures that are the same for everyone else' is naive in the first case, and stupid as well as naive in the second. The question that should be asked in the 1st instance is one of 'does this generate more utility than any other option'. This covers everything, including an important but unmentioned matter of whether these pensions generate increased demand for these jobs
(i.e. to exaggerate, you don't want to pay congresspeople so little they have to accept money from lobbyists, or perhaps you don't want to encourage congresspeople abusing their seniority by refusing to retire because they do not have a large enough pension; or even, you want to make the job more financially beneficial, creating more competition for the position, generating a better quality of congressperson). The 2nd question is just plain idiotic, unfortunately,
because it assumes that the funds available to the government are even close to what'd be required for everyone to have the same pension, which is positively not the case, would be a bad idea regardless, and if attempted, would grant people an utterly marginal pension, since this pension that only applies to the 535 congresspeople, would now be distributed between 307 million people, worst case scenario, at least 25 mil, best case (given what unemployment is now).
@Vier5501 (unless he meant the enforcing of a universal private pension plan resembling that of the Congresspeople's pension, which is, if not as bad an idea, is still quite terrible, as it'd add significant value to the cost of hiring labour [perhaps by a 100% in some cases] generating significantly more unemployment, due to outsourcing, or just plain bankruptcy or shrinking by firms who can't pay this much for labour, generating huge barriers to entry for SMEs)
Take away Hitchens' British accent and he's just another talking head. An intellectually lazy, willfully ignorant Socialist hack. The English version of Geraldo Rivera who never posessed one single original thought. Milton Friedman was probably the greatest Economic mind of the last 200 years. A true intellectual GIANT. What did Hitchens do?
@432ps1 Big claims require considerable evidence. Milton Friedman would almost certainly have opposed any government intervention in the mortgage-backed securities market for example (as Greenspan did). Now that position may have mitigated the impact of the quasi-Federal agencies involved but at the same time it would not have prevented the most serious harm inflicted on Americans by the private mortgage securitization market (where lending standards plummeted). The crisis discredits him
If you think American politician's are bad, one should should have a look at Irish politicians. Irish politician's are worse then the Mafia and could give American politician's lessons.
@TennisAnnalyst The profits you created but weren't compensated for are then "redistributed" to the shareholders. To the rest of your points I hold no contention.
@Tennis I disagree on a philosoophical level with your first point. I see any system of society as one that "redistributes wealth." In total absence of govermental intervention, you are still working for a company which has increased profits due to your labor. You are compensated for some of that labor, perhaps the majority of it, but the company "keeps" some of it (total profits your labor provides for the company minus your salary).
Hitchens admitted that we was Marxist in the past, i just don't know when this change happened, so its not surprising to see videos with this kind ideas.
Well he has certain things changed, the dissolved relationship to one concept of the left. To present day he still views the world in marxist terms. Which I admit is hard to do, once you have some knowledge of it, because viewing the world in marxist terms is a tool/prism often prompts a reaction (which i will elaborate), no matter what (biological dispositions and socially determined stimuli) = political viewpoint.
A reaction that promts caring for the struggling etc. Unless for a person its more emotionally sound to reject the theory, which we can only speculate why, i assume psychopaths would be nonmarxists or vulgarmarxists for sure. Pure ignorance may count for most of the indirect or direct rejection i think. One could argue that seeing the world in marxist terms doesnt prompt such understanding for that it "might only" explain societal development. Further inquiry though ->
would reveal alot of social releations ie during the feudal system that would require some understanding/or intuitively understood factors (might be the most common case much) of human emotions and behavior. Simple knowledge of working conditions while knowing that only a faction of the fruits of labor return to those that actually produce value is something that is very hard to ignore when it comes to judge of social issues. Thats why its emotionally hard to reject it later on.
@RipTheJackR I was born in USSR so mine point of view is more personal, Hitchens became disillusioned by Marxism later on, i read it in his biography Hitch 22. At least he is being honest about how and where his political views changed.
@Mishkafofer He's always been opposed to stalinism and "soviet socialism". Well before his trip to Cuba, he went there to discover whether or not Castro offered a more Left-Wing Libertarian option-- which he did not. Hitchens considers himself a Marxist, a Trotskyist and a civil libertarian. When he says he isn't a "Socialist" he is referring to how disgusting Soviet Socialism became after Lenin's death.
Members of Congress should only at best be eligible for the same Federal Pensions that the rest of the Federal Service gets. And have to serve at least 20 years and pay into it to be able to collect anything. Like the rest of the Federal Service.
When did this business of calling Democratic Presidents socialists start? We see in this clip they were saying it about Clinton. Did they make this claim about Carter?
Oh my god, that lady is so annoying. She is no conservative. I have never heard a conservative say "I want" so many times. "I want this... I want this... I want this... I want this...." No one gives a shit what you want lady. DO SOMETHING, stop telling us what you want. She is a socialist to the core, and she doesn't even realize it, is the pathetic part. She summed it up right there at the end, I want government to take care of the little people..... ugh, socialist.
@pretorious700 LOL, you mean get yourself out of the West? Where you live now? India? Ahhh, Thailand, nice. My brother lives there, says money goes a lot further in Asia. Said he can get three course meals for about 1.50-2.00. Granted, he is still working there, and they pay for pretty much all of his expenses, so I doubt he would be so happy if he had to be paying all those big ticket items, like energy, car payment, rent, etc.
@987chesster Why? Christopher Hitchens isnt an economist, and his best topic to speak on isnt even the economy. It would be allot better to watch Haykek Vs Friedman or to an extent Noam Chomsky Vs Friedman.
@Malthus0 Just because he supported an invasion of Iraq (not the Bush plan or execution, though he defends it in part) doesn't not mean he has drifted away from socialism... he still defines himself and acts as a Trotskyist
@Relbl He still does consider himself a trotskyist and a marxist with regard to social ideals, but he said he stopped calling himself a socialist in the 90s (probably because of the decline of the international movement).
@alabamamanable He has also referred to himself as a libertarian. I suspect his continued education has driven himself away from socialist policies. I suppose I could be wrong though.
@darwinkilledgod I find that very difficult to believe since he, in an interview only 2 months ago, said he still considered himself a "leftist." Unless you mean a civil libertarian, which I'd agree, though he's always had that view. I can't say I've ever seen him unambiguously agree with any economic libertarian principle save for the flat tax concept (though if libertarians would claim a flat tax rate as unilaterally their child, I'll eat my hat).
@alabamamanable I didn't believe that Hitchens actually supported such a regressive policy as the flat tax.However, he did indeed. I feel he hasn't fully thought out that issue. Which is the first and probably last time I will probably ever say that.
@Theocrasuck Well a flat tax doesn't have to be regressive, it just would be with the U.S. IRC (I've read some of the senate, house, and joint finance committee reports responsible for additions to the IRC and their wording, and they have no shame in making it clear that they are introducing an addition or revision at the behest of a wealthy corporate donor). I believe he alludes to this corruption (his possibly misplaced disgust with accountants) while mentioning a flat tax.
There's nothing regressive about flat taxes. You merely need to bump up the minimum wage, or wait for the market to self-equalize, and you'll end up with the same situation we have now, except with a smaller bureaucracy and fewer loopholes for the rich to exploit,
@c6gunner That does not make a lot of sense to me. No offense. Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at? When I think flat tax I think of applying the same tax rate to all people, regardless of their income. Like a sales tax. Which is another regressive tax policy. I don't care what kind of market equilibrium or minimum wage changes you throw at it. It is still regressive. Unless maybe you allow a deductions below a certain income line...is it still a flat tax then?
It's simple. Imagine someone makes $20,000 per year and pays $1,000 in taxes. Now you implement a 15% flat tax, and that person would need to pay $3,000 in taxes. So, in order to equalize it, you bump up the minimum wage rate - now he makes $25,000 a year, paying $3,750 in taxes, and taking home more than he originally was.
Of course, I think minimum wage laws are regressive too, but if you're lowering the tax rate for business owners to 15%, it shouldn't be TOO harmful.
@c6gunner You think minimum wage laws are regressive? I don't think you know what that word means. In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
You in no way stated how raising the minimum wage lowers the obvious disparate burden a flat tax lumps on the poor.
Pure nonsense from start to finish. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, especially unemployment amongst students and others who lack "experience". If you don't see that as regressive, you're out of your mind.
@c6gunner Child labor laws too! How dare those leftists keep our children from working 12-18 hours a day, earning pennies, making shoes for grand corporate entities like NIKE (sorry, I meant people like Nike). Furthermore, we should abolish all safety laws as they are a drag on the company. Minimum wage laws are neither regressive nor progressive. Unemployment amongst students is much more complicated than you would have the reader believe.
@c6gunner In the UK from 1997, when the minimum wage was introduced, unemployment fell continuously for almost a decade until the onset of the financial crisis. Also, as Friedman himself admitted, free market arrangements can incur negative cost externalities. The minimum wage is an attempt to reduce poverty, which left unchecked can result in large cost externalities. Just because we can pay workers 50 cents an hour doesn't mean we should. Impoverishment doesn't do much for an economy
@c6gunner Ok you need to understand what the word regressive is. Have you considered that debating in a video that involves the great Christopher Hitchens might be a little too much for you? Maybe you should start off in the Sarah Palin videos and slowly work your way up. Don't hurt yourself mate.
@c6gunner Agreed, it's basically economic cannon. Now there are limits of course to how low the wages might go naturally, because a business needs people with enough purchasing power to buy the goods and services which they produce, but that's been the prevailing opinion in economic theory for so long its practically dogma.
Right - you don't want to swing too far to either side of the bell curve. However, most people who understand economics will agree that an organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes is more stable and responsive than one which is controlled by government fiat. There are, of course, exceptions - for instance, sometimes external control needs to be exerted to overcome monopolistic practices - but salary constraints are not in that category.
@c6gunner There is no such thing as an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes'. I am afraid that is an illusion, at best. Every single economy on this planet must take into consideration a myriad of facets to include governments. Furthermore, the 'market' has never and will never be free. People will and do exploit their capital, land, talent and resources often. This will not change and is evidenced in the need for governments to regulate living wages.
If you imagine that the phrase "free market" implies some wild beast gallivanting worry-free through the plains of Africa, you've horribly misunderstood what's being discussed.
@c6gunner Creating Straw men to counter an opponent of your opinions does not advance your arguments. My point still stands. There is no such thing as an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes'. You are deluded. The very notion that government does not help an economy is an ignorance of history. Perhaps you should remain on topic and explain your own statements and avoid intellectual dishonesty. I fear you may struggle with the latter.
@c6gunner As predicted, you struggle with remaining on topic. This shows your vast knowledge of economics. The fact remains your libertarian mantra of an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes' without government is an illusion. Seeing as all you can do is an attempt to belittle me it would seem you hold no confidence in your own claims either. Well done.
There is no topic, dumbass - you made some half baked claim which was impossible to decipher, I responded with a sarcastic attempt to divine your intent, and then you went off on some weird tangent. Since you've failed to even make a coherent statement - let alone support that statement with evidence - there is nothing for us to discuss. All that remains is for me to mock you.
@c6gunner You're right. We weren't discussing economics and you did not, in an attempt to sound profound, make a statement about organic economies and natural processes. I don't blame you in resorting to your current bout of name calling. I wouldn't know how to explain your babbling either. Good job!
@xxcrysad3000xx You might be retarded. If so I am truly sorry and I am sure you have a very nice helmet. Economic cannon? I think you mean canon. Read 'Would Cutting Minimum Wage Raise Employment' Paul Krugman. Since he literally wrote the textbook on economics I am going to believe him as opposed to your mouth breathing idiocy. Some people should be shot with an economic cannon....
@Theocrasuck Yes Krugman wrote *a* textbook on economics, and so have dozens of others (Ben Bernanke sits among that esteemed company). We're talking about classical economic theory and you bring up a 1000-word editorial from Krugman's personal blog, these are two completely different spheres to draw your opinions from. Krugman is a good economist and I doubt he'd be sloppy enough in his textbook to omit mentioning the classical-liberal minimum wage attitudes which still prevail.
@xxcrysad3000xx You are right he is not that sloppy ... amazon has the contents available to see what you will.ISBN: 978-1-57259-150-9. I enjoy debating with you :)
@Theocrasuck Look it up yourself. The majority of economists agree that the correlation between the two is direct. The higher minimum wage is, the less businesses can afford to hire less-qualified employees.
If you pay $3.33/hour for your jobs and you have $10/hour to spend, you can hire three people. If you are legally forced to pay $12/hour for workers and still have $10/hour to spend, you're not hiring anybody.
@thegoodgeneral I don't have to look it up. Say what you want about minimum wage.The fact is minimum wage laws are not regressive. No one defines them as such... it does not even make sense. No economist refers to them as regressive. Like it or not Regressive is a word used for Tax Policy it does not make sense to call minimum wage regressive. Now you run along and "look it up".
No need for a study - it's simple math. If I hire 50 workers at $7 an hour, and a month later the minimum wage goes up to $10, I have to let some of them go, or I have to increase my prices. If most employers do the former, unemployment goes up; if most do the latter, the increase in wage becomes meaningless thanks to the higher cost of living, and you get inflation. My advice: study math and economics.
@Theocrasuck Indeed you are right. Flat taxes are regressive because they are levied irrespective of the payer's disposable income. Take council tax in the UK. Although it is not a flat tax it is arguably regressive. The average council tax bill amounts to 10% of a minimum wage income. Someone with a million pound townhouse may pay twice as much but it may consume less than 1% of an already massive income. That's regressive.
Wow, Gingrich, Bush, and their junta sure been looking out for the little guy while they were in power, haven't they? Good grief, listening to that lady at the end you realize so many simpletons out there are their own worst enemies when it comes to voting in their own best interest. At least she has an inkling that the politicians she sympathizes with aren't really on her side...
Oh wow.... Bible Belt caller
rotvalo 1 day ago
Comment removed
mikejpete 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikejpete
"Hitchens sure has changed..."...
..dying will do that to ya.
badger5079 1 week ago
@mikejpete good point he was alive back then
nevets7921 6 days ago
@nevets7921 lol I meant his foreign policy. But yeah shame. Not enough intellectuals, contrarians, or proud atheists left
mikejpete 6 days ago
Our government is incredibly corrupt. Democratic Republic my ass. Oligarchy is more like it.
nkelly1432 2 weeks ago
@nkelly1432
Aye.
It is in FACT an oligarchy.
shurednichso 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The question being asked of 'what value do they offer to us [now that they're retired]' and 'why can't they enact measures that are the same for everyone else' is naive in the first case, and stupid as well as naive in the second. The question that should be asked in the 1st instance is one of 'does this generate more utility than any other option'. This covers everything, including an important but unmentioned matter of whether these pensions generate increased demand for these jobs
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(i.e. to exaggerate, you don't want to pay congresspeople so little they have to accept money from lobbyists, or perhaps you don't want to encourage congresspeople abusing their seniority by refusing to retire because they do not have a large enough pension; or even, you want to make the job more financially beneficial, creating more competition for the position, generating a better quality of congressperson). The 2nd question is just plain idiotic, unfortunately,
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
because it assumes that the funds available to the government are even close to what'd be required for everyone to have the same pension, which is positively not the case, would be a bad idea regardless, and if attempted, would grant people an utterly marginal pension, since this pension that only applies to the 535 congresspeople, would now be distributed between 307 million people, worst case scenario, at least 25 mil, best case (given what unemployment is now).
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vier5501 (unless he meant the enforcing of a universal private pension plan resembling that of the Congresspeople's pension, which is, if not as bad an idea, is still quite terrible, as it'd add significant value to the cost of hiring labour [perhaps by a 100% in some cases] generating significantly more unemployment, due to outsourcing, or just plain bankruptcy or shrinking by firms who can't pay this much for labour, generating huge barriers to entry for SMEs)
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
"Sorry to interrupt"... HITCH CONTINUES TALKING. lolol
tp19361 1 month ago
Take away Hitchens' British accent and he's just another talking head. An intellectually lazy, willfully ignorant Socialist hack. The English version of Geraldo Rivera who never posessed one single original thought. Milton Friedman was probably the greatest Economic mind of the last 200 years. A true intellectual GIANT. What did Hitchens do?
432ps1 1 month ago
@432ps1 wrote a lot of books, captivated a lot of minds, spoke at a ton of conferences, original thinker or not i doubt you can discard his influence.
He didnt win the nobel in economics ! :)
amok52 1 month ago
@amok52 If want to be entertained by a buffoon, I'll watch The Three Stooges.
432ps1 1 month ago
@432ps1 Big claims require considerable evidence. Milton Friedman would almost certainly have opposed any government intervention in the mortgage-backed securities market for example (as Greenspan did). Now that position may have mitigated the impact of the quasi-Federal agencies involved but at the same time it would not have prevented the most serious harm inflicted on Americans by the private mortgage securitization market (where lending standards plummeted). The crisis discredits him
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@432ps1 I love the way you said that, Can I quote you?
Porojukaha 1 month ago
@Porojukaha Knock yourself out! :-)
432ps1 1 month ago
something tells me hitchens would make an extraordinary pokemon trainer
katinkers 1 month ago
this is how you win a fight with a woman...you pull your wiener out and get her to look at it and slap her across the face with it a few times.
malechauvinistxy 1 month ago
"contract on America" ha ha ha
bkr0127 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AS OF TODAY.....I AM I A HITHCHETSNIST::: always in search of truth
parisruiz1 2 months ago
If you think American politician's are bad, one should should have a look at Irish politicians. Irish politician's are worse then the Mafia and could give American politician's lessons.
swissnor 3 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst The profits you created but weren't compensated for are then "redistributed" to the shareholders. To the rest of your points I hold no contention.
alabamamanable 4 months ago
@Tennis I disagree on a philosoophical level with your first point. I see any system of society as one that "redistributes wealth." In total absence of govermental intervention, you are still working for a company which has increased profits due to your labor. You are compensated for some of that labor, perhaps the majority of it, but the company "keeps" some of it (total profits your labor provides for the company minus your salary).
alabamamanable 4 months ago
Hitchens admitted that we was Marxist in the past, i just don't know when this change happened, so its not surprising to see videos with this kind ideas.
Mishkafofer 7 months ago
Comment removed
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
Comment removed
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
Comment removed
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
@Mishkafofer
Well he has certain things changed, the dissolved relationship to one concept of the left. To present day he still views the world in marxist terms. Which I admit is hard to do, once you have some knowledge of it, because viewing the world in marxist terms is a tool/prism often prompts a reaction (which i will elaborate), no matter what (biological dispositions and socially determined stimuli) = political viewpoint.
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
@Mishkafofer
A reaction that promts caring for the struggling etc. Unless for a person its more emotionally sound to reject the theory, which we can only speculate why, i assume psychopaths would be nonmarxists or vulgarmarxists for sure. Pure ignorance may count for most of the indirect or direct rejection i think. One could argue that seeing the world in marxist terms doesnt prompt such understanding for that it "might only" explain societal development. Further inquiry though ->
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
@Mishkafofer
would reveal alot of social releations ie during the feudal system that would require some understanding/or intuitively understood factors (might be the most common case much) of human emotions and behavior. Simple knowledge of working conditions while knowing that only a faction of the fruits of labor return to those that actually produce value is something that is very hard to ignore when it comes to judge of social issues. Thats why its emotionally hard to reject it later on.
RipTheJackR 5 months ago
@RipTheJackR I was born in USSR so mine point of view is more personal, Hitchens became disillusioned by Marxism later on, i read it in his biography Hitch 22. At least he is being honest about how and where his political views changed.
Mishkafofer 5 months ago
@Mishkafofer He's always been opposed to stalinism and "soviet socialism". Well before his trip to Cuba, he went there to discover whether or not Castro offered a more Left-Wing Libertarian option-- which he did not. Hitchens considers himself a Marxist, a Trotskyist and a civil libertarian. When he says he isn't a "Socialist" he is referring to how disgusting Soviet Socialism became after Lenin's death.
patient0Studios 4 months ago
Members of Congress should only at best be eligible for the same Federal Pensions that the rest of the Federal Service gets. And have to serve at least 20 years and pay into it to be able to collect anything. Like the rest of the Federal Service.
FRSFreeStateES 7 months ago
When did this business of calling Democratic Presidents socialists start? We see in this clip they were saying it about Clinton. Did they make this claim about Carter?
greggh 8 months ago in playlist Hitch III
@greggh All US presidents are statists and socialists, it's a job requirement.
pretorious700 8 months ago
Oh my god, that lady is so annoying. She is no conservative. I have never heard a conservative say "I want" so many times. "I want this... I want this... I want this... I want this...." No one gives a shit what you want lady. DO SOMETHING, stop telling us what you want. She is a socialist to the core, and she doesn't even realize it, is the pathetic part. She summed it up right there at the end, I want government to take care of the little people..... ugh, socialist.
bweazel 8 months ago
55 years old? Retired? ......... How'd she pull that?
bweazel 8 months ago
@bweazel I retired at 45. It's called work your ass off, invest wisely, and get out of the US as soon as possible.
pretorious700 8 months ago
@pretorious700 LOL, you mean get yourself out of the West? Where you live now? India? Ahhh, Thailand, nice. My brother lives there, says money goes a lot further in Asia. Said he can get three course meals for about 1.50-2.00. Granted, he is still working there, and they pay for pretty much all of his expenses, so I doubt he would be so happy if he had to be paying all those big ticket items, like energy, car payment, rent, etc.
Really though, it's only a matter of time, imo.
bweazel 8 months ago
The Retarded Liberals have feathered their nests a great deal more though, haven't they?
--That's why they're all socialists, finding inequalty and injustice everywhere
--and making big money to produce greater inequality and greater injustice
so as to create a perpetual machine of extortion against society--eh?
--or did you think you were fooling somebody?
Zendout1 9 months ago
@Zendout1 Hope you were drunk when you wrote this, otherwise you should be really ashamed!
Haven't read that much crap for long time!
1stAma 9 months ago
I would love to watch Christopher Hitchens discuss the current financial situation with Milton Friedman.
987chesster 9 months ago 21
@987chesster Hitchens is economically retarded, he would be eaten alive by Friedman.
pretorious700 8 months ago
@pretorious700 econimically retarted!!hahahahahahaha nice one!!
DoelGr 8 months ago
@987chesster Friedman would take him apart with sharper reasoning...
mtklaric 2 months ago
@987chesster Why? Christopher Hitchens isnt an economist, and his best topic to speak on isnt even the economy. It would be allot better to watch Haykek Vs Friedman or to an extent Noam Chomsky Vs Friedman.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Haykek and Friedmen would just congratulate each other, the agree on everything.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 month ago
@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX not really watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg
manntizz 1 month ago
0:18
i was thinking for a second, 'why didn't you just call him' lol
100CommonCents 9 months ago
@100CommonCents of course, only for a second
100CommonCents 9 months ago
No left wing democrat will get elected ?????? Oh yes, its a 1994 clip.
vkorchnoifan 11 months ago
He switched away from socialism when he grew up, as many of us do.
mrwalterwalters 1 year ago
I wonder when Hitchens changed his mind away from socialism?
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 Just because he supported an invasion of Iraq (not the Bush plan or execution, though he defends it in part) doesn't not mean he has drifted away from socialism... he still defines himself and acts as a Trotskyist
Relbl 10 months ago
@Relbl He still does consider himself a trotskyist and a marxist with regard to social ideals, but he said he stopped calling himself a socialist in the 90s (probably because of the decline of the international movement).
alabamamanable 10 months ago
@alabamamanable He has also referred to himself as a libertarian. I suspect his continued education has driven himself away from socialist policies. I suppose I could be wrong though.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
@darwinkilledgod I find that very difficult to believe since he, in an interview only 2 months ago, said he still considered himself a "leftist." Unless you mean a civil libertarian, which I'd agree, though he's always had that view. I can't say I've ever seen him unambiguously agree with any economic libertarian principle save for the flat tax concept (though if libertarians would claim a flat tax rate as unilaterally their child, I'll eat my hat).
alabamamanable 9 months ago 7
@alabamamanable I didn't believe that Hitchens actually supported such a regressive policy as the flat tax.However, he did indeed. I feel he hasn't fully thought out that issue. Which is the first and probably last time I will probably ever say that.
Theocrasuck 2 months ago
@Theocrasuck Well a flat tax doesn't have to be regressive, it just would be with the U.S. IRC (I've read some of the senate, house, and joint finance committee reports responsible for additions to the IRC and their wording, and they have no shame in making it clear that they are introducing an addition or revision at the behest of a wealthy corporate donor). I believe he alludes to this corruption (his possibly misplaced disgust with accountants) while mentioning a flat tax.
alabamamanable 2 months ago
@Theocrasuck
There's nothing regressive about flat taxes. You merely need to bump up the minimum wage, or wait for the market to self-equalize, and you'll end up with the same situation we have now, except with a smaller bureaucracy and fewer loopholes for the rich to exploit,
c6gunner 2 months ago
@c6gunner That does not make a lot of sense to me. No offense. Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at? When I think flat tax I think of applying the same tax rate to all people, regardless of their income. Like a sales tax. Which is another regressive tax policy. I don't care what kind of market equilibrium or minimum wage changes you throw at it. It is still regressive. Unless maybe you allow a deductions below a certain income line...is it still a flat tax then?
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck
It's simple. Imagine someone makes $20,000 per year and pays $1,000 in taxes. Now you implement a 15% flat tax, and that person would need to pay $3,000 in taxes. So, in order to equalize it, you bump up the minimum wage rate - now he makes $25,000 a year, paying $3,750 in taxes, and taking home more than he originally was.
Of course, I think minimum wage laws are regressive too, but if you're lowering the tax rate for business owners to 15%, it shouldn't be TOO harmful.
c6gunner 1 month ago
@c6gunner You think minimum wage laws are regressive? I don't think you know what that word means. In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
You in no way stated how raising the minimum wage lowers the obvious disparate burden a flat tax lumps on the poor.
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck
Pure nonsense from start to finish. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, especially unemployment amongst students and others who lack "experience". If you don't see that as regressive, you're out of your mind.
c6gunner 1 month ago
Comment removed
AtheistDaddy 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@c6gunner Child labor laws too! How dare those leftists keep our children from working 12-18 hours a day, earning pennies, making shoes for grand corporate entities like NIKE (sorry, I meant people like Nike). Furthermore, we should abolish all safety laws as they are a drag on the company. Minimum wage laws are neither regressive nor progressive. Unemployment amongst students is much more complicated than you would have the reader believe.
AtheistDaddy 1 month ago 2
@AtheistDaddy I think we need to put our kids to work sucking off Newt Gingrich! How dare they try to learn while the great king has a dry knob.
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck I know you're drunk, inrl!
AtheistDaddy 1 month ago
@AtheistDaddy True Story!
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@c6gunner In the UK from 1997, when the minimum wage was introduced, unemployment fell continuously for almost a decade until the onset of the financial crisis. Also, as Friedman himself admitted, free market arrangements can incur negative cost externalities. The minimum wage is an attempt to reduce poverty, which left unchecked can result in large cost externalities. Just because we can pay workers 50 cents an hour doesn't mean we should. Impoverishment doesn't do much for an economy
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@c6gunner Ok you need to understand what the word regressive is. Have you considered that debating in a video that involves the great Christopher Hitchens might be a little too much for you? Maybe you should start off in the Sarah Palin videos and slowly work your way up. Don't hurt yourself mate.
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck
Hasn't anyone ever told you it's a bad idea to show up to a battle unarmed?
c6gunner 1 month ago
@c6gunner Agreed, it's basically economic cannon. Now there are limits of course to how low the wages might go naturally, because a business needs people with enough purchasing power to buy the goods and services which they produce, but that's been the prevailing opinion in economic theory for so long its practically dogma.
xxcrysad3000xx 1 month ago
@xxcrysad3000xx
Right - you don't want to swing too far to either side of the bell curve. However, most people who understand economics will agree that an organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes is more stable and responsive than one which is controlled by government fiat. There are, of course, exceptions - for instance, sometimes external control needs to be exerted to overcome monopolistic practices - but salary constraints are not in that category.
c6gunner 1 month ago
@c6gunner There is no such thing as an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes'. I am afraid that is an illusion, at best. Every single economy on this planet must take into consideration a myriad of facets to include governments. Furthermore, the 'market' has never and will never be free. People will and do exploit their capital, land, talent and resources often. This will not change and is evidenced in the need for governments to regulate living wages.
AtheistDaddy 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy
If you imagine that the phrase "free market" implies some wild beast gallivanting worry-free through the plains of Africa, you've horribly misunderstood what's being discussed.
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner Creating Straw men to counter an opponent of your opinions does not advance your arguments. My point still stands. There is no such thing as an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes'. You are deluded. The very notion that government does not help an economy is an ignorance of history. Perhaps you should remain on topic and explain your own statements and avoid intellectual dishonesty. I fear you may struggle with the latter.
AtheistDaddy 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy
You obviously don't know what the phrase "straw man" means. THAT worries me more than your complete ignorance of economics.
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner As predicted, you struggle with remaining on topic. This shows your vast knowledge of economics. The fact remains your libertarian mantra of an 'organic economy which responds to various inputs via natural processes' without government is an illusion. Seeing as all you can do is an attempt to belittle me it would seem you hold no confidence in your own claims either. Well done.
AtheistDaddy 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy
There is no topic, dumbass - you made some half baked claim which was impossible to decipher, I responded with a sarcastic attempt to divine your intent, and then you went off on some weird tangent. Since you've failed to even make a coherent statement - let alone support that statement with evidence - there is nothing for us to discuss. All that remains is for me to mock you.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner You're right. We weren't discussing economics and you did not, in an attempt to sound profound, make a statement about organic economies and natural processes. I don't blame you in resorting to your current bout of name calling. I wouldn't know how to explain your babbling either. Good job!
AtheistDaddy 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy
Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries!
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner You wiper of others' bottoms!!
rotvalo 1 day ago
@xxcrysad3000xx You might be retarded. If so I am truly sorry and I am sure you have a very nice helmet. Economic cannon? I think you mean canon. Read 'Would Cutting Minimum Wage Raise Employment' Paul Krugman. Since he literally wrote the textbook on economics I am going to believe him as opposed to your mouth breathing idiocy. Some people should be shot with an economic cannon....
Theocrasuck 4 weeks ago
@Theocrasuck Yes Krugman wrote *a* textbook on economics, and so have dozens of others (Ben Bernanke sits among that esteemed company). We're talking about classical economic theory and you bring up a 1000-word editorial from Krugman's personal blog, these are two completely different spheres to draw your opinions from. Krugman is a good economist and I doubt he'd be sloppy enough in his textbook to omit mentioning the classical-liberal minimum wage attitudes which still prevail.
xxcrysad3000xx 4 weeks ago
@xxcrysad3000xx You are right he is not that sloppy ... amazon has the contents available to see what you will.ISBN: 978-1-57259-150-9. I enjoy debating with you :)
Theocrasuck 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner Says the guy left holding an empty sack.
Theocrasuck 4 weeks ago
@Theocrasuck
Nice response. Very intelligent and well thought out. Kudos!
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner Well now that you have me tamed.. Should I expect a stake through the heart :) thanks I love lively debates
Theocrasuck 3 weeks ago
@c6gunner Minimum wage laws increase unemployment? Really? Show me one study from a reliable source shows this.
Theocrasuck 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck Look it up yourself. The majority of economists agree that the correlation between the two is direct. The higher minimum wage is, the less businesses can afford to hire less-qualified employees.
If you pay $3.33/hour for your jobs and you have $10/hour to spend, you can hire three people. If you are legally forced to pay $12/hour for workers and still have $10/hour to spend, you're not hiring anybody.
thegoodgeneral 1 month ago
@thegoodgeneral I don't have to look it up. Say what you want about minimum wage.The fact is minimum wage laws are not regressive. No one defines them as such... it does not even make sense. No economist refers to them as regressive. Like it or not Regressive is a word used for Tax Policy it does not make sense to call minimum wage regressive. Now you run along and "look it up".
Theocrasuck 4 weeks ago
@Theocrasuck
No need for a study - it's simple math. If I hire 50 workers at $7 an hour, and a month later the minimum wage goes up to $10, I have to let some of them go, or I have to increase my prices. If most employers do the former, unemployment goes up; if most do the latter, the increase in wage becomes meaningless thanks to the higher cost of living, and you get inflation. My advice: study math and economics.
c6gunner 1 month ago
@Theocrasuck Indeed you are right. Flat taxes are regressive because they are levied irrespective of the payer's disposable income. Take council tax in the UK. Although it is not a flat tax it is arguably regressive. The average council tax bill amounts to 10% of a minimum wage income. Someone with a million pound townhouse may pay twice as much but it may consume less than 1% of an already massive income. That's regressive.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
06:15 Hitchens and interlocutor describe Bill Clinton with precision.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
Wow, Gingrich, Bush, and their junta sure been looking out for the little guy while they were in power, haven't they? Good grief, listening to that lady at the end you realize so many simpletons out there are their own worst enemies when it comes to voting in their own best interest. At least she has an inkling that the politicians she sympathizes with aren't really on her side...
OolTube02 1 year ago
Goodness gracious me! Republicans were crazy even back then. They have no idea what socialism is...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 seem to know well enough what it becomes though :P
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 1 year ago
@OolTube02 or they knew but they were just spreading lies and voluntary willful ignorance
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ipetratz 1 year ago