Richard Epstein Enriches Us with His Ideas on Inequality, Taxes, Politics, and Health Care 

"God knows"

I'd like to see a remake of "The Shawshank Redemption" in which it's a poster of Epstein on the wall instead of Welch.

+7beers They both don't look their age either.

+lorem ipsum I don't think that is who he had in mind, as he said someone under 55 who wasn't born in the lap of luxury...honestly the name that came to mind for me was Rubio...not that he is my favorite candidate...but that is who I thought of...

+mzk1 Frightening isn't it?

+Anogoya Dagaati Like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E Williams, Richard Epstein was swept under the rug by the mainstream media. God I hate the Leftist media.

God help us! I don't have TV at home precisely for this reason. All the production is filtered through such myopic minds that I can barely endure nearly everything thats on there. I come to RU-vid because at least here I can choose my content. His prose is just unreal and the quality of his thinking in dissection of matters. Man! I could go one but I'd be preaching to the choir! Keep learning my friend!

Anogoya Dagaati Agree 100%.

+DirtyNewby You can, but the point is that it per the constitution, it should be done by vote at the state level, rather than government fiat....marriage is a power given to the states rather than the federal government...we live in a republic not an oligarchy...

DreamAboutSpace "excessive returns to capital". I will try my best to explain for you, DreamAboutSpace. Capital has two definitions; a financial/accounting one, and an economics one. 1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash. (accounting/finance) 2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business and used in production. (economics) essentially right now income inequality is arriving from an excessive return on capital, meaning wall street etc. is making boatloads of money off of financial assets etc. (that is atleast the narrative) return on capital= profit what Richard Epstein is alluding too is that when there is more competition for labour, capital, land etc, profits are reduced. the classic example is two salesmen offering lower and lower prices to a consumer. it is in his opinion that in a freed, growing economy, the competition for everything expands and it reduces returns or investment. essentially the competitive process will ensure there aren't excessive returns on capital. is he correct? no idea i am no economist, but then again, neither is he. hope I helped.

+DreamAboutSpace www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnofcapital.asp

The intent was to create an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges. What other laws should the executive unilaterally change if they don't have their intended effects?

Different parts of the law were written at different times. At the time the part that says "State" was written, a federal system was not thought to be necessary. But then they added one. Just like the second amendment uses the militia to give an example of why you'd need the right to bear arms. Taken as a whole, and comparing what advertisers of the bill were saying at the time, it's clear how the law was supposed to work.

Wizmut It seems to me that the whole concept of having separate state exchanges and allowing states to opt out was a compromise required to get enough votes to pass it. If circumstances have changed since then it's up to Congress to update the law but it's NOT up to the administration to re-write the thing unilaterally. Have you listened to the comments of Jonathan Gruber on the matter? "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits"

There are a limited number of ways to rephrase the truth? It's like the Tolstoy quote, "All happy families are alike; all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way."

Nicely put.

wow. Well said

Stephen Garfield You criticize these men's ideas while being too ignorant to even know that trickle down economics is entirely a strawman from the left. Looks like you drank the mainstream kool aid. Further, who says either of them is rich? Please move to Europe, you greedy prole, before you help the American left ruin the Republic even more than they already have.

Jak Kuhl Thank you, Jak. "Trickle down" was an invention of Ted Kennedy, I believe, who was a fount of awful ideas, and a generally rotten human being, which tells you something about the average Massachusetts voter. In truth, capitalism has nothing to do with "trickle down." A capitalist puts their investment forward with no guarantee that he will see a return on the investment. Meanwhile, Stephen Garfield gets a paycheck every week. The capitalist can lose everything. Stephen is guaranteed what he has been able to negotiate. In contrast, Progressive economics - where money is either taken from others, or conjured out of thin air - is poured down in the assumption that it will result in … well, nobody actually knows. Because the fact that you want something (demand-side) doesn't mean anyone will make it happen. In any event, there is no connection between those who spend money, and the responsibility for how productive that money is.

Jak Kuhl A million thumbs up.

+Stephen Garfield So you would rather earn $9 as long as the others get less? Thank you for explaining the current economy.

You're either young, useless or inexperienced if you only make minimum wage. I don't think I've ever worked for minimum wage in my life. Although, I did start my job as an intern getting paid nothing. Had there been a law against that I may have never even gotten the job in the first place. A good example of how it can potentially hurt people starting out in the labour market.

At one point Epstein states that he's in favour of legalizing polygamy. Would you agree with that?

MrGp59 I think I ma going to need some proof of what you are saying. I have seen him debate with many other academics who hold him in the highest regards.

MrGp59 He has to be intellectually dishonest because the empirical data shows that Reaganomics doesn't work the way the right wing politicians claim it does. There is a bizarre psychological phenomenon where a certain percentage of the population will refuse to change their ideas once consolidated, no matter how much evidence is given to prove they are wrong. The most bizarre part about this is that it's been observed that the more thorough and more comprehensive the evidence against their belief is, the more they will double down and refuse to change their stance. This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one.

Lets agree that it does not work. So what do we do? Should we listen to Paul Krugman? Should we mandate that anything someone makes over a million dollars should be spread among the people? Should we move to a France style economic system?

L3opard123 "This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one." This could also explain why leftist economics is also bitterly clinging to life, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of its failure provided by the 20th century. FTR, mercantilism is a "right wing" economic theory. Free Enterprise is free. Leftists are able to participate, as is anyone, which is why you can use it to do social goods that you admire. See: Newman's Own. In a "right wing" or a "left wing" economics, economic freedom is limited in one degree or another to the views of those who have power. Free Enterprise separates, as much as possible, economic activity from political outlook.

MrGp59 As Epstein has said in a different video, he usually puts people's protests about ethics down as "a placeholder for a real argument." More precisely, I think you mean, "I disagree with where Epstein's philosophy leads, and I have no way to break his arguments, ergo, I will impugn his character." It's very Progressive of you.