Larry Summers and Allison Schrager were absolutely abysmal in this debate. The fact that they are still deploying the age-old logic of the "good cop" banker elite tells you all you need to know about how utterly barren neoliberals are of even the most basic economic logic.
Yep Trickle Down Economics is a huge failure. Filthy rich CEOs spend money to control government. It is not spent where we need it for democracy and our future.
I like how the winner isn't declared based on a simple majority, but how many people are convinced to go for a particular side proportionally speaking over the other side. This gives people who are arguing for an initially less popular position a very solid chance. It also encourages the more popular side to not just use rehashed arguments that caused their side to be initially popular to begin with, but to use arguments in order to appeal to people who want more than that.
This is why my obsession with math waned decades ago.You get so deep into it that you think that your perpetually stoned.Your figuring out things that you can never in 3 lifetimes have any clue why anyone would ever need to even know.Watson is mathematicians and engineers.Not the antichrist by any means ……but what I was interested in……becomoming increasingly crazy.Safe crazy.But nevertheless crazy.Crazy is crazy to me.I am absolutely positive that they would have a total front lobe thing about why their analysis is correct.So deep in the weeds that most couldn’t locate their left foot.It’s fun beyond belief.Buts it’s a totally space cadet stuff.I totally agree with you on this discussions winner.It’s all the wrong metrics.It’s figuring out the wrong problem.Which is about as common as changing your socks,
Even though I support the pro-Cap side, I was glad to see Yanis and Robert confront Allison on her ad hominem and strawman arguments. I don't know if she learned this style from social media, and it would be hard to prove, but it's something I've observed in others of her generation.
Boo Alison, your arguments are in line with defending the rich. Way to go looking after your own well being for a lobbying job. The desire to work is not based on money. It's based on internal drive, e.g. neurochemistry. Why aren't these people not using the expertise of neuroscientist 🤦
And on the need for purpose, meaning, and some form of recognition or acknowledgment. Money helps, too. Problems occur when the job is someone else's decision or plan, for it then does not grow out of one's own passions, talents, or interests.
Must admit I haven't brushed up on my tax plan knowledge so please feel free to educate me but I do recall the Denmark model where the tax height is proportional to the amount of income a person earns in a financial year.
@@khoile9807 Is there any sane basis for Progressive tax brackets instead of a gradual curve? What is the math behind the idea that if you make one more dollar outside of a bracket, your taxes go up 10 or 15%? What’s the rationale?
@@johnbuckner2828 There is none, that's why it's not a good system I prefer the flat tax system, all people pays the same percentage, all men are created equal and all. If you ask taxpayers, an overwhelming majority of them shall answer in preferences of the most stable system that lets them pay the least possible amount of tax, the billionaires claiming they want to pay more tax are mostly lying, they know those systems never last. But what is the definition of a good tax system? Encourage the most growth or gain the most tax revenue? Should you eliminate basic human value just for that purpose of tax revenue? Forcing some people to pay more just because they're richer is already immoral, apparently those people are less equal than other people, because they're being punished for doing the same thing. Doesn't matter how productive it is, legal labor is still legal labor It's a complicated matter, that's why I'm asking of the math. All of the current systems are equally flawed. There isn't clear reasoning behind any of them? Do you have a clear reasoning behind yours?
It’s well seen that Yanis was the only European in the discussion. He was the only speaker with an historical narrative to share. With great wealth comes great responsibility. Bezos pays his workers a minimum wage rate - where’s the respect in that and where’s the recognition of his workers contribution to the acquisition of his wealth?
Your point about historical background was good, but with regard to Bezoses of the world, it's not about "respect". Respect is a moral qualification, while they are a class born and raised for the purpose of exploiting the working class at workplaces, buying political power, and making immediate profits while wrecking the real economy and the environment. You can't ask a class with that purpose for "respect", you can only abolish it.
@@JohnKerbaugh yeah, sounds bad. Interesting way of drawing the distinction between winning and competition. Americans tend to value winning, whereas much of the rest of the world values the process, the pursuit, the competition. The winning solution seems to be somewhere in the middle. I don't know what that looks like, but it seems a worthwhile pursuit.
This reminds me of when I was a child, and my parents first taught me about work and pay, my first assumption was the hardest jobs must be paid the most, right? The garbage collector - a disgusting laborious job - surely would pay more than someone sitting at a desk pushing papers... But when they told me that it was the opposite, I was shocked. The hardest jobs should be paid the most! I thought. You'd have to pay someone a lot to get them to do those hardest jobs, right? Boy, was my little mind screwed up when I learned the truth. Looking at it from a humanist perspective: I believe the One Percent have a HOARDING problem. We should be asking how much one human needs to be happy. Certainly one human being does not A BILLION DOLLARS. One human being does not need A HUNDRED MILLION dollars! And when 1% is hoarding while 44% (or whatever the percentage) doesn't have enough to meet their basic human needs (food clothing shelter) - THAT is the ultimate problem that needs to be addressed. Corporations/companies should be forced to pay a living wage. Elizabeth Warren proved several years ago we are so far below that... I think it's foolish that Congress (well, Democrats) are still talking about "Fight for $15"... The $15 minimum wage was the argument - what 6 years ago? When Sen. Warren proved @5 years ago that $22 was the calculated minimum that should have been paid THEN to meet productivity. Yet they're still arguing about paying $15/hour? It's foolish and insulting. I also loathe that people like Summers just completely ignore the fact that we used to have more fair tax rates - pre-Reagan... They want to pretend like there was never a 90% tax rate! We can't even learn from our own experience let alone learn from other countries? How arrogant a country are we?
It's sad but these conversations should begin with a reminder of who we're talking about - a specie who professes to be evolved, and or enlighten, religious, and or spiritual, who are the product of a supreme beneficent being, who entrusted them with being the custodians of the planet. As your statement begs the point - how much in a world of limited resources, how much wealth, and thus power, should one person be allowed to amass? This is the central question. Another key question in a competitive situation, there will be those who win and those that don't, how should society view those that don't win, and how should those who don't win, view themselves? The question of the monopoly and waste of land is also a key question. A single family can take up a vast amount of land, for their home, swimming pool and lawn space, and whatever else they might do with it, when some of that space could be used woodland that filters the air and cool the planet. They build houses so big, their children can get lost in them.
You raised great points especially when it comes to jobs that some refer to as "less dignified yet necessary". When Yugoslavia broke up some of the social aspects were kept. I am from Bosnia (poor country) and yet we have health care coverage as well private practices if you can afford them. We also have something called "dignity bonus" which is a set amount of money (forgot how much) which is added on top of the regular pay for jobs like trash and heavy waste disposal, communal jobs, sewer and septic tank maintenance and cleaning etc. Basic premise is that we tend to associate these jobs with poverty and also acknowledge that the person executing the job knows this hence since the job has this dignity cost then it should be compensated. As for discussing tax reform itself we don't have a satisfactory method for determining how much an individual needs as there are to many variables. However, what has proven to be the most productive route is to frame the discussion about tax reform as it will apply to everyone across the board and avoid targeting any one class individually. The somewhat ideal thing to do would be to apply a personal income tax which would scale based on how much income came in over a span of 1 year. This would apply to personal fines received by law enforcement as well. Not sure but I think Denmark uses this model. Sadly I lack the knowledge when it comes to business taxation as it is incredibly complex and tbh I really wanted to learn but it was just to damn boring
The person risking the most capital and investment and who has to make sure all the parts are operating, this is the one with the right to the highest salary. The unskilled laborer can be replaced.
@@ShunyamNiketana No one is saying the CEO should get less than the cashier. Your argument is extremely disingenuous. It's about them getting 1000x or more than what the "unskilled laborer" gets, who also lives on a rental, owns nothing and pays for food in fucking coupons. There's a fine line between greedy and evil and you're pissing all over it.
In adding to a redistribution of wealth, there needs to be a redistribution of value, especially to the value of human life. If we did that, there may in fact be much less of a need to redistribute wealth, if any need at all.
I enjoyed this even if 2 years late.Heard it Xmas day 2022 driving through Nashville.Ironically the people I make fun of the most made more sense to me even though the voting favored the more conservative side .Which is usually where I am at.Reich spoke eloquently and conveyed his points.His Greek tag team guy the same.Summers couldnt sell ice in hell.A few points….the system is rigged……and although they insisted on twisting it this way it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about being being envious or hateful on the rich.Too much power in way too few hands is why a now defunct MA defense contractor has openly stalked me for 45 years.No I am not crazy or stupid.I would be in jail if I drove by your house too many times.And 19 new Steve Jobs would make matters much worse over time.One of him is more than enough.Being filthy rich hardly makes you add to my quality of life or come close to convincing me that you are somehow a great American.
Very interesting how the American intelectual establishment attacks Yanis because he is the out-of-the-box thinker with historical proof to support his arguments.
End lobbying and get money out of POLITICS. Until that happens we will never have anything close to a fair and equal system of government. Ever!! Regardless of how much wealthy people pay in taxes or not
ah yes, the american classic: always capitalize on calling capitalism critics 'stalinist and maoist' (to show that she is more educated than the generic american who calls any european talking evidence-based, inclusive democracy , 'communist'). because we can't apparently dread accumulation as an end in itself or have read Marx for real, and noticed his critique of capitalism, if not his dubious communists plans for the future, hold a lot of water. it's more convenient, to gather consensus, to instantly call people stalinist. LOL. Varoufakis is right: grossly offensive, because it is both a manipulative rethoric trick and ignorant at once, and it underlies a genuine lack of intellectual honesty. blond then further proceeds with 'we can't establish people's wealth'. no, but the IRS should be able to, and the people are right to be appalled by the 'added value' the trump finance games have added to the country (insert thousands of lawsuits here. i guess some lawyers got well paid jobs, but truth: lawyers don't add anything to the economy. wages and productivity are entirely disconnected in a feudal, status-based, society. we should really become aware of the difference between 'status' and 'productivity'). maybe american exceptionalism need its 'exceptional-not' path to fascism to realize what predatory elites do to society, 'cause you simply show un utter lack of interest in western history, where denied access to hoarded resources to satisfy basic needs (there , call me a communist when i don't speak of ownership, but access), was always a condition for 'violent revolutions' not just communist as much as (more pertinent here), the french revolution (insane wealth gap) and more so: italian and german fascism/nazism. conservatives need to pretend to not see the self-evident truth that FDR fiscal policies made possible for you to have the money, and the moral values, to save the world from fascism and its narcissistic elites. . and you win debates only 'cause people don't deconstruct but respond to retorical tricks, specially the ones built around the tribal identity of 'capitalists vs communists'. and the have-nots being simply envious (the implication being that they're down 'cause they're inferior human material). pathetic. a defeat of the analytical intellect, for narcissistic motives, that's what today establishment sells.
if redistributing wealth will make people lazy, what does that say about those who are already wealthy? (LAZY). I can't even work extra hours in my job, and I have to watch management spend money on their own pet projects to further their own careers. It's all about power they have to chose where to distribute resources to benefit themselves. their argument? it's just 'business', it's self interested business, they don't even benefit 'the business' . 59 to 37% does not make them winners, that's like saying someone who came third last time and second this time wins, ridiculous re-framing.
Fifteen seconds in Reich discusses how schools are crowded in the inner cities. Public education for those that haven't been paying attention is now public indoctrination. The education a kid gets in a $50k per year school is in an entirely different realm. Today's schools are essentially daycare for the working masses. More money is not going to fix the problem. The schools systems are designed to keep the masses barely functional. In terms of "fairness" the citizens of the Soviet Union decided 30 years ago that the system they had in place was not fair either, nor was it functioning economically. And they finally decided they wanted their freedom which the Marxist system could not allow. Of course Mr. Reich believes this time they'll get it right. Yes, he believes a worldwide Marxist system is the answer. Of course his globalist, plutocrat handlers absolutely agree. He is correct in that big money has corrupted the system. All of the panelists avoid the big issue, that of fractional reserve, fiat banking. They essentially are discussing peripheral non-consequential redistribution tactic and not systemic issues. What they also fail to mention is the hidden wealth that really controls everything. The owners of the Bank for International settlements are not known to this day, and it's officers are essentially above the law. This is the foundation for the corrupt state in which we live. Nobody mentions the state secrets that all of the countries maintain to hide the true power base.
Exactly, people like that seem to think wealth will just fork over the money instead of... you now... just leaving or transitioning the extra cost onto the customer or taking it out of their payroll. Being a billionaire doesnt necessarily mean you have billion of dollars in the bank, its an estimate of your assest combined.
Appreciate the opportunity of the debate, but my god. How can anyone possibly come out of this and think that the super wealthy shouldn't be taxed more? The one guy arguing that we'd have more Andrew Carnegie's...... Well, we have many more people who eclipse the wealth of Carnegie, and yet none of them contribute to society like Carnegie ever did.
i don't think we need income redistribution which is carefully planned to tax the wealthy heavily and distribute their taxes we can just place small taxes on non essential products like marijuana, sports betting and casinos and distribute that money through welfare that way the money collected for welfare would be given voluntarily by the consumers of those products
@@robinsss It's been a while and I don't quite remember the topic, but I believe my point was that wanting to take my money is one discussion, but don't be offended if I refer to it as a tax, because that's what it is. You can justify a tax, but don't pretend it isn't a tax.
39:24. Ah, Robert. I think you just said that this debate is not about what this debate is actually about. Isn't it about redistribution of wealth? It is. To Mr. Summers' point, let's not start from the standpoint of deamonizing the rich, but at the same time recognize that much of the $ to redistribute is going to be from the super rich. The debate is about if we should redistribute wealth (from the rich down the economic ladder), and Mr. Summers seems to be arguing for that point, all the while saying we should not vilify the super rich. Ok. Done. Now let's reform the laws. Oh wait, we can't because of the disproportionate influence of the rich in making laws; and getting the government to work for them and not The People. Bit of a conundrum here.
Go read thomas piketty. After having read capital in the 21st century nobody who is not blending the public on purpose can seriously be against a progressive wealth tax and at the same time talk about the american dream and strengthening competition. Bullshit! This discussion is not about people getting rich, it is about the rich ones getting even richer because their money works for them. The more capital one has the higher the returns that this capital generates, no question. And it is totally misleading to always talk about the few entrepreneur exceptions from a rule which applies today as much as in the era before the french revolution: Most of the wealth is INHERITED! Most rich people are rich because they invested their INHERITED wealth to generate even more wealth. As thomas piketty writes: We are currently very close to returning to the wealth distribution of the time of absolutism and louis the 16th. That kind of inequality is completely unstable long term and if it's not put to an end by redesigning the economic rules, it will probably be overthrown as violently as absolutism
There was no mention of capital flight. I see the issue from a global perspective. Take ESG (global warming) as an example of mandating structural policy change within one country @ the same time others refuse. We are a sanctioning Russian fossil fuel purchases while they back door sales to China and India. As a country you can try to govern for equality but the current wealth can and will exit your border.
Using "The politics of envy" is not an argument but a personal insult which some conservative-people use to protect the status quo. I am tempted to counter it with, "The politics of greed". Wealth breeds wealth, and wealth means power to protect wealth. The world needs a fairer distribution of the waelth generated by people's work. We can't categorize wealth as corporate wealth, personal wealth, inherited wealth or any other kind of wealth that is not part of the argument .Face it please: wealth is wealth. Try not to mess with people's minds. Income tax used to be much more progressive but the wealth have used their power by making income tax much less progressive in order to protector their incomes and the way they amass wealth. I favor that and other techniques but do not like taxing wealth. That is a red herring."The politics of greed"is another red herring. I have heard no arguments over making income taxes more progressive and fairer. Using taxes for improving education, training for people unemployed due to climate change or other societal changes, improving health care, infrastructure, more leisure time, family time after child birth, updating schools, prisons is not giving wealth to poor people. Instead of lobbyists we need a department where any and everybody can make representations to improvee the tax system not just rich people.
Maybe some ppl just believe taxes should be lower. I’m by no means rich and I think that progressive taxes r ridiculous. Anyone can get ahead in America if u r smart about it. U mean ruin that the progressive tax rate used to be higher which is true but the effective tax rate was lower when u took into account tax breaks. That’s where the real corruption lies. Get rid of all the tax breaks and establish a flat income tax or (since an income tax is arguably unconstitutional) raise sales tax.
@@BigDadiShagi OK. One at a time 1.To get the same revenue from a flat tax, those in lower tax brackets would need to pay more tax and those in the upper brackets would pay less. 2.Allowing tax breaks (loopholes) rewards rich people and their accountants and 3. Society needs to afford things in common: roads, clean water, and air, defense, education and so on and on. To say raising money by a tax on income is unconstitutional means you haven’t thought this out properly. The GNP or the income of the nation is what must pay for those items. Those who object should go live in a cave but somebody would have work in order to pay to transport clothes, food and water to them. I am fairly well off and believe that everybody who lives n a society should help make it the very best society we can.
@@donaldedward4951 there is evidence that it is politics of envy as people, shown by studies, don't tend to evaluate their life based on the past or curret stability but rather the people above them. The living standards of people today are 10 times better than 20 years ago, about 50 times better than 50 years ago, and arguably 1000x better than people 100 years ago. The fact is that the standard of living has been rising exponentially over the last century, however this is obviously lost on people for multiple reasons, ignorance of history and life in other countries and a focus on those that have it better than they do. Also, people that advocate for flat tax do so only with the assumption that in simplifirs the tax code, as in no more loopholes. Some believe this would result in more tax money from the rich as it becomes unnessusarily to invest money into avoiding high taxes to remain competitive in the market, and overal more taxes from those that currently dont pay any taxes due to low income or write offs, flat tax will be lower so it is not like this will affect them severely. Its by far the most fair system
@@manniefresh3425 The Devil can quote statistics and does. The ‘’Politics of envy’’ is intended as an argument but it is no argument just an insult. and can be countered by the ‘’Politics of greed’’ I like to use facts not insults. I have a degree in economics so please excuse me if I don’t indulge in the usual political slanging match. More money invested in investigating tax cheats would result in more tax money from the rich as it becomes very, very expensive in fines and penalties to invest money into avoiding taxes. Then going to prison is very uncomfortable and even more so for people used to an indulgent lifestyle. That idea is very scary for some of us. Flat tax means poorer people would pay more and richer people would pay less and would be a boon to the extremely rich. If it encourages cheating as you suggest it would be a boon to the employment in the justice system and the prison system. Social democracies (sorry, I know how some of us detest the word social, and society) most often have back to back coalition governments which assures consistent policies through the years ( when it happens occasionally here we call it ‘’working across the aisle’’) and no violent changes of governments seeking power by spending huge amounts of money. You will find fewer tax cheats in Social Democracies operating in capitalist economies then check the Democracy Index and then the World happiness stats.You could check health index and longevity. People pay more tax but get much more for their tax money. They have adequate defense forces but rarely if ever initiate foreign wars. What's not to love?
@@ronaldreagan3086 ok. So i gather you are not one of those millionaires then. But surely a lot of their wealth must have trickled down to you. The taxes they paid must have then funded your free health, free education, paid 4 week vacations, etc.
@@ronaldreagan3086 stockholm syndrome? If it makes you happy to believe you are not being taken for a ride and hoping that one day you will stand a chance be one of those top earners, then good for you! I am old enough to remember a world without neoliberalism, alternative facts, trump and fox news so I think I will stick to it. Enjoy !
I am SO sick of this corny notion from rich people that 99.999999999% of Americans are serfs and peasants. This corny, stale, moot narrative that "the serfs are all just trying to put food on the table" IS SO GOOFY.
Because we understand the main reason people are poor in western countries is because they are bad with money. Giving them more money just means they buy more crap they don't need.
It really depends on what you mean by 'redistribution of wealth'. This term can mean anything from common forms of taxation like sales taxes to a socialist society. The debators themselves couldn't even agree on a definition for the purpose of this debate.
@@garheadkingdom People saving their money is good for the economy. Someone having money in the bank means they provided some good and have yet to demand a return on it. Just like wealthy people who leave all their stocks in a company. They can at any time (with a delayed response in most cases) demand their money from the company but instead allow it to remain in the form of office buildings, trucks, employees etc etc all of which benefit society as the whole. On the other end the person who spends their money as soon as they get it on garbage like porn, alcohol, drugs, designer clothes etc etc is transforming their efforts into crap.
i hate the rhetoric of "we can't tear down the billionaires because its so unfair". This world is so damn unfair that if fairness is an issue for you, any unfairness toward multi millionaires and billionaires is par for the course. If you want to discuss fairness, why is everything so FAIR (and socialized for them), but unfair for everyone else? You also CANNOT tear down a billionaire. they fucking have too much. You could spend a lifetime trying to tear them down, strip away 90% of their wealth, and they'd still be left with BILLIONS!
@Ronald Reagan It is a systemic reason. You need to do more reading, but economic systems are very integrated on how wealth is distributed. ultimately our entire global system of wealth, is a production management system. Setting aside the fact that extreme wealth is always a result of exploitation or simple seizure (theft), throughout our history, when wealth is concentrated into large amounts you create parasitic (and rent-seeking) centers instead of productive centers. The short of it is one creates a vampiric system meant to benefit the few at the expense of the many. So billionaires make OUR lives on this planet and going into any sort of future, worse. There is a lot mote detail and nuance to what i touched on only very briefly, but the cause and consequence of how we structure society has far reaching impact (and always has had).
@Ronald Reagan friend, what you are repeating are bland talking points given by the capitalist zealots and overlords. I'm talking about history, and how economic systems actually work. I'm not even talking about communism which is probably what the zealot capitalist will also try to confuse you with. I'm specifically talking about our structures of wealth concentration vs human production. and they have not changed throughout history. Human have used a very common model, based on "i take" and "you serve" since the dawn of civilization. i'm not "trying" anything. Just waking up to 'how things actually work'. But it does take a long time to examine a few thousand years of history and economics, so i don't expect you to figure it out in a mere youtube comment section, especially since we have all be indoctrinated by propaganda since birth to not understand anything REAL that is occurring in our systems of resource management. (which is what economics is)
Reich: “It’s a bad policy.” This from the man who suggested Trump supporters should be brought before a Truth & Reconciliation Commission for re-education. Clearly, he’s not someone in a position to judge policy.
LARRY TALKS ABOUT " TEARING DOWN BILLIONAIRES" POOR BEZOS, HE WILL KEEP ONLY 100 BILLION INSTEAD OF 200 BILLION. I GUESS THAT TEARS HIM DOWN ACCORDING TO LARRY.
Lawrence, top already unfairly concentrate wealth from the society thru money/power machine, it's time to have fair play for all people, and to build a health society.
Of course it can. This more so should read, 'Working for a large company is no longer a guarantee of not living in poverty'. It's not hard work or Capitalism, it's Government control and these new massive companies that gobble up everything. I think we need more small business and the Government to get out of our lives.
I've no idea who "the media" is - because there's a ton of very different media asking very different questions - but the absurd notion you just posed there seems to suggest it's you making assumptions without asking, or learning, about anything.
Allison Schrager - Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute is shallow and contrite. She does not seem to be as sharp or informed as the other members of the panel.
Start saving your money. Make it your number 1 financial priority to always have an amount of money that allows you to feel comfortable. Then spend the rest towards investing or Commodities. If you are irresponsible with your money, by spending more than what you earn, any change in policy will not change your habits. If you take the total amount of money in the world, and spread it evenly amount the world population, it would be about 10k in every person's pocket. If you have less than 10k, this seems like a more attainable goal than waiting on others who have more than 10k to give you that amount. Both goals are difficult though.
The largest employer today is Walmart, averaging $8-$15lhr, in the late 60's (when middle class peaked), was GE with inflation for today would be $23/hr. IRS data states with inflation minimum wage would be $21, the cost of things today avg person needs a minimum of $1k / wk just to afford basic nessities. Sadly as wages slowly lag climb every to years, companies rise costs expanatially
Anyone else notice how uncomfortable the each side appears when the other is speaking? This has to be the most uncomfortable conversation in the world today and people should really wonder why that is? Who is lying to you?
Lawrence's pearl-clutching opening statement is so overly dramatic that it tanked the well-presented opening statement of his ally, Allison. I do not agree with their side as they are arguing that not only should you lick the boot on your face, but you should like the taste as well (how's that for dramatic) but Lawrence could have done better to not be so unlikable.
It just got worse as the debate went on. the opposition could not seem to make a coherent point and instead kept trying to rewrite the narrative, trying to cast their opponents as envious and naive yet they could not build a platform for why the current system is working or what would replace it. One assumes it is because even the opposition knows the system is broken.
@@ShadowLiger92 You realize that the opposition won the debate don't you? They moved 17% of the undecided voters to their point of view, while the "for" team only moved 2% to their point of view.
when people focus on tax rate % they are still missing half of the formula. 5% on 1 mln is higher than 100% on 1000. Rich people contribute more than many lower income people all together so who do we need to thank more...low income people who want higher tax on others ( not them of course) or rich people who found the way to make more money and contribute more? Many countries are in deficit, who the hell can pay for this? the rich or the poor? u r poor ? complain first to your parents and to yourself. want to be rich, imitate richer people. dont get manipulated
Rich people contribute more to poverty than poor people, that's where you're right. The fact that wealth increases itsself or that workers are the exploited backbone of every corporation seems to have slipped your mind. Don't drink the neoliberal kool-aid, it's pure ideology. Even in this debate you can see how Yanis brings actual materialist historical arguments while the opposition recites the well-debunked neoliberal fairy tales of incentives.
If Summers isn't a representative of the vested interests, I don't know who is. And, Bloomberg isn't exactly an impartial entity in this arena. I would suggest a close look at its wealth when the moment of redistribution arrives.
I'm starting to wonder if voters who know their position is unpopular intentionally vote "undecided" in the pre-vote. So that it can appear as a "win" when they recast their vote for their position in the post-vote. It seems that by now, viewers have figured out that swinging the undecided vote is what will "win" the debate.
19:48 - Go Robert! Thanks to everyone for being courteous. Thanking the other side is important for discussion and really fleshing things out. Yes, the debate is not about a wealth tax, it is about the redistribution of wealth. Interesting distinction. I agree it should not be a about tearing people down, rather, building up. If there is no money for people to use to build themselves up, how are people to build themselves up? I have no problem with people earning money, but getting a few billion richer in their sleep due to the stock market...oy. Most people can't even begin to imagine how to invest in the stock market. If there weren't big $ barriers to investing into the stock market, things might be different. 24:00: Oops. Looks like I was too early with the courteous comment. That sure is one way to detail a conversation. Not productive. I was hoping for more, better. I tune in to these things to hear discussion of current affairs, not more politics. 🤦♂️🙄
And a maximum limit as to how much higher the top earners income can be then the bottom earners. If the top wants more he can do so but will also have to raise the bottom earners pay as to not exceed the maximum gap limit
Summers loves this idea about envy of the wealthy that is never brought up by the other debaters. Also, funny he had a female debate partner when he doesn’t think women have an equal capacity in mathematics. That’s who summers is - look it up.
We should make every person take an I.Q. test. Then simply redistribute all wealth based on who has the scores. Those with the higher scores getting more.
The textual construct of the title might be incorrect in representation of the nature of wealth distribution. Maybe the title should have been; "It's time to re-redistribute the wealth"?
Debate but be fair & watch your language and address the points of the other side. 1.Levying tax according to a man’s means is not “Tearing down the successful” 2.Progressive taxes are not "The politics of envy" 3.Taxing the nation is not “taking people’s money away” It is "Getting people to pay their fair share of the national expenses".
If we were to redistribute all the wealth in the world evenly among all citizens, I'd be willing to bet that we'd be back where we are now within two to three generations. Very interesting debate though.
And the winning team is?... The team arguing Against the resolution! Really? Nice job Bloomberg intelligence Squared. The name of your channel is the epitome of irony.
The taxes paid by the many subsidize and bail out big corporations whom pay little to no taxes instead of putting it back into society for stability of its people, stop inscentivizing companies low paying low stability low benefit jobs and then taking all of the benefits . Those companies receive tax breaks and money paid by tax payers, but top employers aren't high paying stable jobs with good benefits. Love watching old politicians stuck in an era when college was cheap ,public college was free and top employers we're good paying jobs that offered stability benefits, retirement,etc... Corporations need insentives to taking care of workers and surrounding communities. Putting profit only above all else poisoned capitalism making it preditory.
Bloomberg "intelligence"?!? What a pathetic, hypocritical joke of a 'show'! This would be absurdly funny if it wasn't so obscene. Still, have to admit, Baroufuckis is a little more "subtle" with his contradictory waffle - depending of course on who's watching and paying... No wonder that creep is laughing all the way to his off shore account...
Lol the winner was decided in a crazy way. Simple majority loses to the side that garnered the most gains. Isn’t that so parallel to the issue of inequality itself?
@Ronald Reagan if you’re a kid at party and there is only so much candy to go around, does it make sense that one kid takes 100x more than the other kid and claims he deserves it? It’s as simple as that. There’s a finite amount of money to go around and it is not just to allow one person to control vast sums of it while others receive little.
@Ronald Reagan I never said they make my life worse. I said it’s it’s not just for some people to own way more than others. Some inequality is good and justified but we are way beyond that point. A handful of people own more wealth than 50% of the globe. Totally unjust.
@Ronald Reagan the problem with your logic is that a billionaire alone doesn’t do anything to change the lives of Americans. It’s a team effort. Entire companies with millions of man hours of work are what causes progress. There’s no reason 1 person should garner the majority of the rewards. It’s the level of inequality I am contending that is unjust. I’m not arguing high value players don’t have higher impact and should be rewarded more. I’m saying there’s a limit to what their reward should be. What’s the most extreme scenario we can come up with. 1 man has all the money and nobody else has any money. Is that right? No, obviously not. So then we must say there must be some limit to what is just and fair for a distribution of wealth. So what is that limit? You tell me. I’d love to know your thoughts.
No. It's time to redistribute access to credit. A respectable distributor of credit denies consumers and anti-social entrepreneurs, while crediting entrepreneurs in proportion with the number of people they employ.
The thing is, all citizens participated in making the country wealthy. If this is not recognized, there will be a reckoning. When a country is the wealthiest in the world, all citizens should have a feeling of abundance. The best way to share in the wealth is UBI funded by VAT and taxes. As it’s happening now, it seems the wealth of the country is created by billionaires alone, like they did it all by themselves without the need for people. Then of course no need for taxes, keep all the wealth for themselves because the people count for nothing, deserves nothing. There will be a reckoning.
Both the arguments from the people debating against distribution were so terrible that they proved the points of Yanis and Robert to be correct. There are no opinions, just economic realities, and the only people pinpointing these economic realities were for redistribution.
Aw bull on most rich to tout the old excuses. It's not liquid It's assets. It's hand to mouth in our 🌎the real world. The richest of Americans made their money here and should pay their fare share of taxes no matter what!alot of the very rich says that they don't mind to pay more taxes. So why the greed with so many. We need more working for IRS TO COLLECT BACK TAXES IN THE US 🇺🇸. THAT WOULD SOLVE MUCH OF PROBLEMS HERE.
industrial democracy is a truism thay only Robber Barons and their ideologues won't ever understand, because it renders them obnoxious. Just like republics made Kings obnoxious
The vast majority tax payers should not be paying for corporate welfare, if current system can't sustain a average person to live on, then their taxes should be invested the needs of majority paying into it, when companies start reinvesting in workers and communities, then you offer them breaks and or subsidies only then
I think we do. And if not him, then someone else would have done it. It's not like his great invention suddebly created Amazon from nothing. It's our collective advancement of technology that made this possible, the material circumstances were right. Also maybe if we didn't have to strive for individual success and capital gain, we could work on stuff that can make us feel good about ourselves because we can actually take positive contribution to society as a first priority. "Nobody would work anymore" is a neoliberal fairytale, would people just collectively fall into depression because there's no monetary incentives?! No! People want to do stuff to help each other, it gives us purpose.
Yanis seems to get it - federal taxation does not pay for spending. The government is not money constrained which means we don’t need the uber rich money.
@Ronald Reagan Greeks adopted the euro, so their situation does not count. They are constrained, whereas the US, Canada, etc, can spend on whatever economic demand without concern for tax revenue. Money is spent before a cent comes into the treasury.
@Ronald Reagan They are all 'horrible money managers' regardless of whether they have a sovereign currency. The west, headed by the US and Europe, has pushed a neoliberal fiscal state on the world, which picks winners and losers. The Greeks would have been better off keeping the drachma. Once they adopted the euro, it allowed the 'foreign' fiscal hawks to turn over state assets to private interest.
Half of the time is spent listening to how IBMs groundbreaking IQ question picking system works, the rest on title cards and John Donvan cutting people off. What happened to this channel? I thought these were long form debates.
The primary title doesn't fit the pro side of the argument leading to confusion. The pro side takes a while to explain how they intend to "redistribute" aka regulate in the favor of the non-wealthy. Methods are still a little unclear.
