@@LegalAutomation They will spend the money fueling consumption and creating jobs the economy while lowering poverty and thus crime/need for government programs.
I am more libertarian than anything but I watch your show David because I had echo chambers and you're very respectful to people you disagree with and educate me on the other side. Much respect!
End occupational Licensing? Would you really want food prepared by unlicensed personnel? After dying from Listeria poisoning, my family will *not* be comforted by the fact that the "invisible hand" of the market will bankrupt that restaurant.
Did you know that not every state has a licensing program for cooking food? And there is not a rise in food borne illness in those states. Now a Dr not being licensed is much more dangerous. Think about it, people cook every day at home without being licensed, would you do heart surgery on your neighbor though? No, you wouldn't, because it requires a much different kind of training. Anyone can cook, not everyone can be a Dr.
@@aaronmcmillen8140 basically.. the food thing... can be solved by having a working agency that keep check on food sellers and give them advice on how to handle contamination better etc. Usa probably has one, but i suspect it could use some updating :)
Ikr, and that played out right here in Philly where a man died from eating tainted meat. I'd give the rest of the details, but it's been more than 20 yrs, but I do recall that it was said he voted for someone who was all about deregulation, including in the meat industry.
@@IIIMajesty idisagree. you cannot, and i stress, you cannot trust business. As long as the option to decieve and be fraudulent is so much more tasty then giving people what they ask for, thats what they will do. Business owners are not our friends by any stretch of the imagination and cannot be trusted to have our best interests at heart. Government agencies are by their very nature heavyhanded and clumsy, but they do come with the backing of the power said government has. Business people in all sizes need that tiny little fear in them that a cell mate named bubba will be their lover if they dont behave. :)
@@greenmarine500 I believe you misunderstand Supply Side economics. It simply states you must produce something to trade for the money you receive. In the absence of money, if you want eggs from the farmer, you must produce something first, like a pair of socks, and arrive with them to trade for those eggs; you're "buying" eggs with socks. Money is just an intermediary, but it does not alter this underlying fundamental aspect of exchange. In other words, to create "demand" you must first "supply" something to trade. Demand Side economics states, no, to create demand you just need to give people money and send them out to buy stuff. The trouble is, in that act of "buying" they don't contribute anything to the pile of stuff (products & services), they just buy down the existing pile. This is what we're experiencing now from government's COVID economic response. The unemployed bakery worker is buying meat at the store without providing bread to sell, and the butcher vice versa. The "trickle down" aspect of Supply Side occurs when the suppliers hire workers to produce stuff to trade. They get paid for providing a "service", i.e. trading their labor, to the supplier who we then call an "employer." But without the employer first, the "employee" never gets paid.
Such a theory does not, nor ever has, existed. As economist Thomas Sowell noted in his book Basic Economics, "'Trickle down' has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.". But "no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal.
Except all the tax cuts aren't equivalent. Supply side tax plans always give huge cuts to the upper brackets and small cuts for the lower brackets. The cuts for the rest of us are just a bone that we are being thrown.
Businesses don't hire people out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they can make more money with that person (even considering salary, benefits, etc) than without them.
@@jeffc5974yes and if we handed all the power to the government, they aren’t just going to give people money or jobs out of the goodness of their hearts either. Nor are businesses going to start giving people more money or benefits out of the kindness of their hearts if we tax or regulate them more.
That’s because 1% of $1,000,000 is going to be a lot more than 1% of $30,000. Please, show me how exactly you would go about lowering taxes for the working class without it being “a bone,” even if you don’t cut the higher tax brackets.
Nice debate guys. I can see where the libertarian is coming from in wanting a pure free market health system but when it comes to health and staying alive money and savings are not the drivers for most. Most people would pay or give up almost anything to get healthy or stay alive...and to keep a love one like a son or daughter alive a lot of people would sacrifice their lives if that's what it takes. You can't tie that kind of desperation to a profit motivated industry. We also recognize that on a certain level. that is why there ant gauging laws during national disasters in parts of this country
The debate missed some main points or even got them wrong. They talked over and over about " value" and resources allocation in the health-care system, as of money and profit, but health is not a merchandise, so the real value is NOT for the profit-oriented business, bur for the state and society as a whole, to have a healthy, strong and productive population
Great point. As for prior reply .... The market is far more consolidated in regards to healthcare. Your town may have 30 grocery stores and 1 hospital. The real high cost healthcare scenarios don't allow for "shopping around". You don't go broke going to the ED for a sore throats but if you actually need EMS your going to be slaughtered by the 1 hospital or 2 they take you to. Not to mention they are not going to ask where you want to go either lol. Lastly you should be aware you don't have a choice.....you will see when you get sick or your family does sadly.
Shay Tinney even if you have multiple healthcare options, it is not practical or even possible in most cases, to shop around. You can't compare prices, because they won't tell you up front, and you have to have an office visit for each one you are considering, which no one has time to do.
8 лет назад
End occupational licensing? I've always wanted to be a pilot and a doctor without having to go to school.
The theory is that if you don't have the education that you will develop a reputation of being a bad pilot or a bad doctor and the market will at some point exclude you from those activities because doctors and pilots with the proper training and education will get all of the business. There are free market solutions that guarantee (within reason) that an individual has the correct competency to perform a service. There are professional associations that offer certification and even publish industry best practices. When a University issues a diploma they certify that you have studied a curriculum that enables you to perform to a certain level of competency in a given field. I think that its perfectally okay for stefan to be a doctor without a license, but when i don't get better, ill hire another doctor, and gladly pay him more money for fixing his screw-up. You get what you pay for.
+Tomas O'Brien Bullshit, most people don't know what makes for a good doctor. You will go to the bad doctor with a cold (viral), he will give you anti-biotics and you get better (because you were going to get better anyway) and you think he cured you. Having lived in places with less rigorous training for doctors I've seen this bullshit all the time, from doctors with great local reputations. Also, you think everything the 1st doctor does to you even can be fixed by the 2nd? The 1st doctor could easily have done something that kills you, paying the 2nd guy more is a laughable solution. And for flying.... so you want 9/11 2.0 to be super easy for them to plan do you? Or you could get the same effect as 9/11 simply from people mistakes. Your point about universities, take another step back, you do realize that university programs require accreditation don't you? From the government you dullard. Sure, they can run the program without it, but the degree is often pretty useless then. I know people that have gotten fucked over by this by doing a new program at a school, it was still in the process of accreditation and they received their degree before accreditation was granted. It was a hell of back and forth paperwork for their graduate school to accept that degree.
It isn't so much a tax increase as realigning who pays the taxes, the rich gain the most and pay the least as a percentage of their income and yet the poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage and get less benefit. When the poor and middle class get to keep more of their income or even, as in the case of very poor people, they spend nearly every penny they have, if it's only that they get to buy $10 more groceries each week that means that with all the poor spending their extra $10 new people are hired at the grocery store who can now buy food from a different store which needs to hire more people who can afford to buy a car and then the city needs to improve the roads so Caterpillar sells heavy equipment to contractor who hire people to build the roads. The alternative is the current system where each middle class worker has $20 taken out of his pocket to make up for the money spent buying stock or put in offshore accounts by the wealthy from the taxes they didn't have to pay. And that's just the short version as there are many more benefits.
Liar. The "rich" pay far more tax than the "poor"...some of whom pay NO taxes, yet still get a "return." The only solution is a flat rate for all income levels. I am a Working Class person, and I think the "rich" pay too much as it is. The Government should cut spending.
Libertarians being libertariany. We have ways of determining where $ should go in healthcare. It's called research that he been done determining why we die earlier than we need to. Cut the defense budget and get rid of this free market competition bullshit regarding healthcare.
the idea that market forces show where resources should be allocated is lunacy. unless the society is equally wealthy, simple inputs of money within a market system doesnt tell you much of anything other than who has money and what they want. that's not the same thing as where resources should be allocated.
irishpugwtf The point the commenter is making is that the rich have disproportionately more money. Obviously. As such, resources that could be used for saving lives are instead put towards a wealthy woman's boob job.
Oldman Jenkins a well payed work force is able to consume more services which allows for businesses and business goes were demand is lower wages equals less demand
***** wrong. if 1 person in a 100 person society has all the money, then the market tells you what that person wants, not what the society needs or where resources should be allocated. markets offer perfect liberty under conditions of perfect equality. this was adam smith's position, and it is mine as well. adopting market systems in a highly unequal society is a recipe for tyranny, not liberty. if you want liberty in a market society that is very unequal, you must either interfere in markets, or redistribute the wealth more equitably.
***** the same principle applies to a society where 10% of people own 90% of the wealth. adopting a purely market driven system, free from government distortions, in such an unequal society will result in tyranny. adam smith understood this. marx understood this. you should understand this, otherwise you risk, out of naivety, supporting a system of oligarchy. ultimately my point is that as a libertarian, you should oppose concentrations of power, be it economic or state, out of fear of those concentrations encroachments on liberty. as it stands now, you support one system of oppression, but oppose another, both on the same grounds, making you either a hypocrite or naive.
This is why corporations are so greedy, because the CEO's are taught by complete idiots like this guy. He makes claims, and when you ask why those claims are true and yours are false, he never actually gives an answer, he just brushes it off and assumes he is right. He never answered how a free market healthcare system is the best, he just states that it is. People like this are only interested in making money, nothing else.
One rich guy told me, if the government gives me a tax break and i have a million dollars extra this year, im depositing it into my savings account and im defenatly not hiring anybody or giving anybody a raise
The money sits in his savings account, and gets loaned out at a lower interest rates which in turn encourages more people to borrow to fund their business ideas which creates growth and jobs! Very good point
@Love Letter most people in 1st world nations are not struggling to pay their bills and have a good standard of living. The faster wealth is created, the more prosperous a country becomes.
It's artificial, but it's scarcity. It's what you get when you try to take good ol' libertaritard guru Ludwig von Mises up on his prognostication that price is the best way to regulate supply. You know, little things like having tens of thousands of homeless even though there's enough vacent housing for every one of them with space left over; like people starving while there's enough surpluses food to feed China for a year and people throwing the stuff away. That's what it's like when everything revolves around money.
@@cpuwrite A good economic theory focuses on an explanation not a prediction. The Austrians and i will give credit where credit is due that the post keynesians/ mmt people do this very well. They will explain their theories very well on how the working economy works. As for just giving vacant housing to people who so call deserve it... it doesnt work and has never worked. Rent control was a disaster when it was implemented and now if we look at a state like Califonia rent control and many other regulations have increased homelessness not decreased. You need money and a profit signal to produce what needs to be produced.
@@hamishcounsell5579 I never suggested that the solution to the twin problems of massive homelessness and vacant housing was to just give housing away. I agree with you that there has to be some self-balancing mechanism.
When there's not enough doctors to go around because no one can afford to go to medical school and the payoff isn't good enough for all the effort to become a doctor you'll think differently
Trickle down economics is also called the horse-and-sparrow theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
Every time I hear someone say social democratic ideas "can't work" I never seem to hear a solid reason. For one thing there's never a solid rebuttal of why it works so well in all the Netherlands and Canada, or an explanation for why when it was working pretty well in the UK with two of its major institutions, healthcare and train transit, both institutions took a huge nosedive in efficiency, quality of service, and sustainable pricing once they started allowing aspects of it to be privatized. They always seem to reply with "well it's all nice and well to think everything would ""just magically work out"" but it's more complicated than people think" and then someone says "magic has nothing to do with it, we would redistribute wealth with these kinds of tax laws, we would ensure workers get paid enough to be consumers by passing these regulations, we'd prevent abuse of the system with these laws," etc etc explaining what sounds to me like totally reasonable and well-thought out logistical plans of how to actually execute the goal and they just repeat "well it'd be nice to think it's that easy but it's not". That sort of dismissal without a point by point explanation of WHY those logistics wouldn't work or what SPECIFIC problems could arise, really looks like they want to avoid helping people think of any potential solutions to those problems by avoiding talking about them in depth, and that sort of "you wouldn't understand so it's not worth telling you why it would be a problem" could only be more condescending if they patted your head while saying it. Every time I hear it, I can't help feeling like here's a big "but" that they really want to avoid talking about. They never want to get to the part where they have to say redistributing wealth means taking it from the people who have wealth and that means there will be resistance, and they don't want to talk about those scenarios, because that steps outside of just economics into the contentious territory of real world interactions among real people. I can understand the fearfulness of talking about that stuff, it scares me to think about it and talk about it too. But I wish they would just admit that's why they actually think it "won't work" and say they don't want to talk about people fighting each other over money, rather than try to pretend there's just some "magical" forcefield keeping social democracy from functioning in the US when it works so well in other countries.
What gets me is that they say that "redistributing wealth" is bad because the government is giving wealth to people who don't work for it, but they never say a word about things like rent, interest or dividends (you know, those things that are referred to at tax time as "unearned income"). To the people who make that bullshit argument, I have a challenge: convince me that Jeff Bezos works for every penny of the billions of dollars he makes. Convince me that the Koch Brothers work for every penny of the money they spend buying off the law. They try to treat government and private business as if they're irrevocably separate, but actually they're both institutions of power, and thus cut from the same cloth. And they'll keep repeating their bullshit about it until hell freezes over no matter how many times their arguments are debunked.
a major flaw in his argument comes from the "famines" that he cites, almost all of which werent caused by lack of food or lack of markets. take the famine in the ukraine under Stalinist russia. wheat exports actually increased as 11 million people were starving. it wasnt due to a lack of knowing where to allocate resources, but rather a distibution problem wherein the russian imperialists were using the ukraine as an export area to bring resources back to the homeland, similar to the way the US has used south and central america in the past. it's essentially like saying that if only we had removed the nazi's food distribution program for the concentration camps and allowed markets to work, then we could have saved 12 million jews. it's totally ludacrous, and wasnt really an economic issue, but a political one, as is the case with almost every famine in the modern era. when goldman sachs, one of the largest commodities trader in the world, buys up 30% of a countries harvest, and holds it until the price rises, is that market efficiency? how is it that socialist countries that have famines due to the inefficiencies of socialist bureaucracies get lambasted, yet the famines incurred by the third world due artificial increases in scarcity driven by market forces arent even mentioned? it is yet again, an example of blind libertarians, who naively believe that the western success is due to capitalist markets, not imperialism. there's always so much hypocrisy when talking to libertarians. on the one hand, they say that it's much more complicated than simply allocating enough food for people to eat, but on the other hand, they make vague references to situations that were far more complicated than they seem, as evidence that socialism doesnt work. it's a double standard. critique of capitalist markets is always "too broad and doesnt take into account the details of the situation", but critique of alternative solutions is always vague, extremely misleading examples of failure, propped up to elicit an emotional response so as to mislead the listener/reader into believing that socialism cant or doesnt work. that isnt to say socialism can work, but make a real argument against it, not this horseshit.
+Bernise Anders This is so true, but idk why +irishpugwtf said what he siad, if it was a joke or what. I would also just add that they do the same thing in reverse as well (i.e. misleading or ignoring the socialist-type things done in capitalist economies such as the bailouts when huge institutions fail and also all the publicly funded and guided research where 99% of all the innovation and technology comes from.)
***** Well I'm not really sure how that equates into calling Americans racist, but also I believe that what he said was pretty obvious and objectively true. At the very least it is obvious and objectively true that western imperialism is the major factor as to why non-western countries (and Japan,) are not developed. I mean it isn't a coincidence that the countries who developed were western Europe and the 1 country that won independence from them (United States of America,) and the 1 country not conquered (Japan). I mean the British didn't just prevent India from developing they actually de-developed them.
***** it's not racism, it's state domination. rome wasnt rome because they were really good at business, or adopted the correct economic policies. they were rome because they forced other societies to allocate resources towards rome. the last 1000 years of western history is basically the same thing. the resources of the world flow to the west, and have for the last 1000 years. it isnt racist to point out that the last 80 years of US history has consisted mostly of the US attempting to maintain a world order that keeps resources flowing to the west, mainly the US and britain. in fact race has almost nothing to do with it. the US bombs brown people just as easily as they do yellow or red or white people. the same goes for the british 200 years ago, the french before them, the spanish before them, the dutch and portugese before them, rome before them, and the greeks before them. it's about resources, and who controls them.
***** you're projecting your opinions of others onto my argument. i never said anything about race. this isnt about race. countries in africa would do what we're doing to african countries if they could. they cant, so they dont. we can so we do. the obligation of the moral citizen, is to limit the damage of a state's actions to other state's. that applies to others in other countries as well. i oppose war crimes, because they're crimes. it matters not what color the people were who committed them, or suffered their repercussions.
Western economic success has happened in SPITE of Capitalism. The manipulators of the economy have the same predatory mentality as Ghengis Khan. Financial growth has come from areas outside of their control and is through symbiotic economics and the increased information content of goods. www.dyop.info/documents/Pilzer-Unlimited%20Wealth.pdf
A completely free market has already been tried, it's called the "gilded age", and it worked out about as well as the bolshevik revolution. So no, thank you
It's getting tiring listening to libertarians say "there's no such thing as trickle down economics" as though that's an argument. It's clear in the context of a conversation what a person means by trickle down economics -- the idea that tax cuts that favor the rich will somehow jump start the economy in a way that will bring in more revenue than is lost by the tax cuts. It also usually means cutting social programs that provide a huge benefit for a large portion of the population, making the poor and working class noticeably worse off despite their meager tax cuts. It's not enough to cry "there's no such thing" when the ideas that are being defended are so incredibly flawed.
What you are talking about is called "voo-doo" economics, and is NOT the same as "trickle-down". The best single-sentence description of trickle-down is "a rising tide lifts all boats".
except trickle down is NOT a rising tide, it's literally helping the rich, who in turn help themselves. a rising tide would be putting more money in the hands of the poor. that money would find its way up to the pockets of the rich, and actually create jobs in the process....THAT would be a rising tide....
So you don't believe in the Child Nutrition Program (CHIP), Medicaid, Food Stamps (SNAP), Children's Health Insurance Program, Social Security, Food Stamps, Housing Programs (HUD) which has programs within itself like Housing for Persons with Disabilities and other government programs to help physically disabled children and adults, mentally disabled children and adults in all sorts of ways and the programs to help poor people, the homeless, disease control, the unemployed and so on. This is what a modern society does but if you believe in a dog eat dog society, a non compassionate nation for those at the bottom that caters only for those who already have then its no wonder that in the near 40 years since the Reagan era when Social Programs began to get cut and more money was funnelled to the top the decades of increased social mobility were reversed and began their long 40 year reversal so much so that its levels are now becoming permanent and are worse than the medieval period. Under the New Deal America's middle class boomed as did the US economy but since then that's all been reversed so as for the top 10% to do well with the top 1% doing ridiculously extremely well at the expense of 90% of the population. Programs that help the poor, sick and needy is fair especially as its the policies of those who so want to cut them that lead to most of this poverty and misery. Go to other wealthy countries and they do not have cardboard box cities for the poor, they don't have housing not fit for animals, they do not have people who fear the medical bill or who go bankrupt due to medical treatment or prescription charges. Nor do they have an education system created to serve the children of the rich and those willing to risk years and years of crippling debt. Its obscene and a national embarrassment especially as we are talking about the richest nation on earth.
John Maddin Exactly. People don't realize how many of these programs actually help people become contributing members of society through temporary assistance, as they were designed to - some of which actually require people to be contributing in the process of being on them by participating a minimum number of hours a week, depending on marriage status, like TANF. In my graduating class of nursing school, there were 5 of us who were on TANF & a CA Welfare to Work program (and at least all of us on Food Stamps). Programs like that change lives for people whose circumstances have changed for a myriad of reason. We all worked our asses off and are now enthusiastic tax payers (well, as enthusiastic as a tax payer can be, lol). I would tangent on the "welfare queen" trope but that is a whole other issue. Have a great New Year!
This is great and I'm glad I found this David Pakman show. What I REALLY liked about this is that it wasn't just a "agree with me" show. You guys seemed to disagree on a point and it was a civil discussion and eye opening for me. I understand his faith in the market, and most likely in economic models it make sense, but economics doesn't take into account human motive. So ideally no rules market would be efficient and great but we had that in america back in the late 1800 early 1900. People worked like 18 to 20 hours A DAY, gov had to step in after protests to establish a set work hour per day, per week and pay and outlaw child labor, etc. These problems existed because of the human part of greed by the employers. So in models and with certain assumptions a free market is great, but the human factor fucks it all up. Anyway, would really want to see more from him and more on economics like you did in the Scandinavian eco, although I want to hear him get into the nitty gritty details about denmark/norway/sweden economies more along with this guy and your scarcity question,
@@justinruark2721 ...which are themselves much, much better than not-so-Breitbart, Crox News, Loonybin Limbaugh's hour of Lies and all the other right-wing snake oil stands.
Capitalist health care in its ideal form: "Mr. Johnson, your wife is having a heart-attack. If you give us all your money, we can help her. You are however *completely free* to go get a quote for a chance of a more competitive price from other hospitals in the city, closest one is 30 minutes from here".
Well if you plan ahead and know her family history. You could look into a healthcare plan or a hospital that will cater to her needs at a lower price. In a ideal situation.
@@taelorwatson9822 Or, like in every other country. You need urgent help? you get help immediately no matter what is your financial situation, whatever is the best option to help you, and all of it mostly for no charge If you are completely broke to pay up the reasonable fees and taxes, well, you get the services for free and will receive additional financial and social help to get you back on the path of becoming a productive citizen Keeping people poor and unhealthy, is the best way to keep them there and outside of the job market, and often will spike up the crime rate, since people do have to eat and get shelter. So sadly, in those situations often crime is the only way forward if there aren't any other support nets cast by the system
Libertarians only deal in extremes and perfect markets. We are not all born with an equal chance in life. How will a free market equalise our life chances and maximise our potential? Libertarianism is ok for academics, not the real world.
@@BarrySlisk I can't tell you precisely what makes a PERFECT market, but I can tell you what a so-called Free Market needs to have in order to work: 1) Perfect competition. Buyers and/or sellers can't collude to manipulate prices. 2) Perfect depth of knowledge. EVERY buyer and EVERY seller has to know EVERYTHING about EVERY deal that they respectively take part in. No fraud or lies. Now do you know why I opine that a Free Market is an Impossible Theory?
Define "work". And if free market do not work, what does work? Free only means without coercion. The market is still free even if people are not all knowing Gods. And it's still free even if price cartels exist.
@@BarrySlisk "The market is still free if the people are not all knowing gods." Agreed, aside from the strawman; one doesn't need perfect knowledge of every aspect of a transaction to make an informed decision regarding it. "and its still free if price cartels exist" No. Just no. That leads to mergers, which leads to monopolies, which kill competition.
I wish everyone could stop buying...so when they make their crap it stays on the shelves and rot... then they can see how important consumerism is to them...it seems his views are lopsided
Consumer base economy is eventually going to be obsolete anyway you put it. Unless we deliberately halt technological progress to maintain the status quo, it could be within 50 years. That has always been the trend of technological progress... convenience, which means the reduction of labour. And you will eventually reach a point where the populations excess labour needs beyond sustainability of current models. No amount of imaginary "new jobs" that free-market advocates like to pretend will magically exist is going to change that. It is already happening in several sector... and that will not stop. So unless one deliberately halt progress and at the same time made life and dignity cheap. The economic model have to change.
@@BarrySlisk But that's the point. The system would completely fall apart if consumerism lowered. That's exactly the point. Consumerism is what drives everything.
Close, but it seldom makes it that far. Trickle down never becomes anything. It IS a lie used to cover up hoarding. Hoarding becomes buying off the law.
the quickest way to invalidate your opinion is by trying to insult those with opposing viewpoints. Especially when you put the word "tard" in the derogatory remark.
@@kabloosh699 Ridiculing your opponent is what one does when they don't have facts to back up their argument. The audience will laugh and forget what was said. It's on old Communist tactic. 0bama was a master at it. Another one is just say your opponent is racist or racis.
Why is using an argument that controlled food supply in other countries didn't work is a valid argument but healthcare in other countries working doesn't count as an argument point because the US is different. Could one argue that the US is different and THEREFORE changing food supply may very well work because the countries that failed were 'different'.
People with lower wages recirculate almost 100% of their money back into the economy, super rich will store larger sums of money in off shore accounts, not recirculating it into the economy. When people are able to spend on goods and services we get a more natural growth in businesses and stocks, in a more stable manner, unlike raising stocks artificially bloating them with buy backs instead of true economic growth, makes it more unstable and increases chances of more frequent crashes.
A lot of people are alerted at the insane notion of ending occupational licensing. Obviously, to be a pilot or sell food you need some license to work under safe conditions. I don't think we need to get rid of it but he could be saying it needs to be reduced. For example, I am a software engineering student. My professors have warned me about offering software and calling myself a software engineer after graduation. Even though I could have years of experience, it could be illegal since I am not a licensed professional. There are weird rules to apply to be licensed. Like, You have to have so many years of experience even though you were never licensed to do it. The organization that grants licenses is made of licensed professionals and they are incentivized to have less licenses around to make the most money since they would have the monopoly on calling themselves software engineers. There are ways around this like offering "technical services", but it certainly does not feel like a free market since I could get sued for saying "Software engineer looking for work".
08:48 "If you take the profit motive out of health care then you have no way of knowing what people *want* ." Yeah, because people *want* treatment rather than *having to rely on it in order to not die.*
he isn't a very good economist if he refers to allowing people to keep their own money as giving it to them. Its THEIR OWN MONEY! its the government which is taking the money from him. So he says not many economist believe in the supply side economics work? This man is no expert or trust worthy.
@@dewaldt8104 Look at US history. When there was no minimum wage, the country had the biggest income inequality in its history (even more than today). They created a minimum wage for a reason.
I think we would solve a LOT of problems if we just got rid of health insurance altogether. It creates an imbalance in the pricing. Here's an example... I got a kidney stone awhile back but didn't have insurance. I went to the emergency room though. I ended up sitting in the waiting room so long that it passed by the time I got to see a doctor. And the doctor spent less than a minute with me. No xrays... nothing. End result... about $2k out of pocket. A few years later the same thing happens, only worse. I went to emergency room, they did xrays, blood tests, etc. I had insurance this time and it cost me like $25. AND it cost the insurance company close to $300. Bottom line, those without insurance (or have poor insurance) are the ones actually paying for those with insurance. And those with insurance are giving large chunks of cash to a third party (insurance companies) that put very little of that back into the medical system. I think a better system would be to have one insurance policy where ALL the proceeds go to hospitals. It would work just like policies do now. Only it would be a larger amount going to the hospital from the insurance policy pool of money since there is no middle man taking a cut.
“ the Health of a Economy isn’t consumerism “ ? That’s a interesting assumption when You consider Capitalist Economies such America would collapse in less than 6 months without “consumerism” ! Foolish
@@TheSwordfishstudios I'm here watching it too, and also in agreement that every point David brought up was thoroughly refuted by the bald guy. Honestly David seemed pretty out of his depth here
Private healthcare creates better competition but its profiting off of people's health.. what needs to be done is have a type of socialist system that takes care of the worst case scenario.. you can't please everyone with is..Canadian surgeons took a pay cut at first but now they refined the system up to a better pay now a days..its the transition that's a slippery slope
I love how his only policy with which I agreed with more than with Hillary's (the massive infrastructure investment plan), was a pipe dream and just a one more lie on an infinite list of lies that the Orange buffoon managed to spew out during his campaign and his presidency. I guess that "massive infrastructure investment policy) was nothing more than a "huge, beautiful, the best, the tallest, magnificent, impregnable - WALL". Thankfully Trump is such an incoherent and incompetent man that we're lucky he didn't transfer our national budget on Kremlin's bank account, by clicking the wrong button. Oooops. "Can we get it back Vlad, buddy, you old jockster?"... "Njet, who is this, change my phone number please..
I think if we are all driven by profit, we have finally arrived in hell. It's a myth. People aren't driven by profit but by meaning. And we try very hard to build the illusion that profit equals meaning but if you are lying in your bed, taking your last breaths your realize how foolish this construction was.
“If the economy is based on consumption why don’t we just give everybody money and have them buy things” isn’t that what’s going on right now and the pandemic with unemployment
I didn't know we had people like this at BSU. Everyone in the Miller college of Business at BSU were libertarians XD except for my business law professor. This was fascinating.
Lutherus P-XCs oh come on man. you know that is a lie of omission. Finland technically doesn't have minimum wage, but effectively does have minimum wage due to collective bargaining and legal enforcement of collective bargains.
Lutherus P-XCs you do realize collective bargaining is WAY more expensive to businesses. because unlike minimum wage, collective bargaining means constant rises and higher wages since the workers have actually power. Not to mention leading to other major obligations to companies through negotiations (working conditions, employment protections, holiday increases etc.). So please go ahead and implement mandatory collective bargaining in USA, American businesses wish they had just accepted a measly minimum wage rise.
A really great debate ! I demand a follow up videos ! You could discuss more defined topics in multiple 1-2 hour long sessions. This was the most interesting discussion you had in a long time :) ! I have a really strong stance on social democracy, but i think our ideas can really be improved by taking the other sides (serious) arguments into consideration. I mean even though scandinavian countries have built their systems really well, that doesnt mean that they can't be improved upon. He definitely has a point that the profit motive, incentivices proper allocation of resources and i think maybe that mechanism could be implemented in a beneficial way into a universal health care system. Anyways i wish you americans best luck for the midterms and changing your country for the better. Greetings from Germany - strongest economy in Europe AND a social democracy ;-)
I was with this guy until he said that what drives an economy is not consumption but innovation. Uh....hello? Yes innovation is important, but if nobody is buying whatever product you innovate with, then it’s useless. Consumption is hugely important in driving an economy. This guys tone made it seem like it didn’t even matter.
I am glad he corrects the misconception on the money multiplyer that the host asserts (c.5:00). The impact from invested money FAR exceeds that of spending, especially when the money is invested intelligently (as would be expected if the person making the investment is already successful). Yes, tax-cut proposals always include lower-income taxpayers, but the reason for that is political, not economic.
And this is why we watch you David. We socialists do think that some things just should not be subject to profit. JUST imagine how great a world it would be if you could go to a doctor whoever you are whenever you need, just like here in the UK. I hope Hilary Clinton gets the chance to build you one with the help of Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton had her chance in 1993 when she proclaimed as First Lady with a Majority Democratic Congress that Universal Health Care was just too complicated to figure out. Well yes Hillary, you cannot have a Universal Healthcare program when Corporate Profits are your main concern. Seriously Hillary? Universal Healthcare is such a Complex Beast that only 32 of the World's 33 most developed countries have been able to make it work..
@@brandonm949 The boss won't pay less if you remove minimum wage and let unions negotiate the wages for each job, it works in Norway, why shouldn't it in the US?
@@g2trashtxd781 I would love that. But 1) this guy never mentioned unions, and 2) you need to get the unions in place before removing the minimum wage and we're nowhere near that point.
Horwitz is obviously a smart man, and he isn't as far gone as some libertarians, but I think David is right and was driving at deeper points that make some of the arguments from Horwitz's side somewhat irrelevant. Also, when he said that we need profit to know where resources are needed where is comes to health care, though, that's where he completely lost me. That was ludicrous.
What many Libertarians are ignoring is the economic balance mechanism. Someone has to make debts so someone else can do investments on the higher demand created by real wages increases wich are again are created by productivity growth. All Keynesian countries (USA, West Europe, Canada, Japan,South Korea and since the 2000’s China and Turkey) kickstarted this through the state, wich started the business circle. (Country’s with natural resources are exemptions as they don’t really rely on foreign money nor the state) The Neoclassical Country’s are forced to wait for foreign investments as they have no savings to lend money and aren’t allowed to go into debts. (Africa and all other developing countries forced by the IWF to liberalize their markets to get foreign investors) But how well does this work? Over 50 years of “independence” following IWF rules and nothing has changed. While Country’s with Keynesian policies have developed fast as f*
It doesn’t trickle, it’s given. Of every man woman and child gets a 10% tax cut you me and warren Buffett get one. That’s 10% more in all our pockets. Lot more for him, but 10% more for you. It doesn’t need to trickle down or up, it’s given to all.
It is really funny how people are blind to see the trees over the forrest. The very reason why you being a waiter in NY making x times more real income than any waiter lets say here in Czech Republic is due to fact that there is so wealth around you which automatically rises incomes to all people.
@@markislivingdeliberately you do realize that its not possible for everyone to just accumulate wealth simultaneously, right? As rich people get richer, regular people make less and less. Supply-side economics only makes sense if we assume that we have an unlimited supply of money to begin with. The fact is that its limited, and if we let the wealthy gain more, we are gaining less.
Pakman, you're absolutely correct regarding scarcity. Things just continue to get cheaper and cheaper. Marx was right, that capitalism will implode, but for the wrong reason. He thought automation would unemploy everybody who would then have no money to buy what automation produced. What he failed to foresee was that along the way everything would become cheaper until it costs nothing. Capitalism (and all econ isms for that matter) will implode because we're on the verge of ending scarcity. All isms are just mechanisms to allocate stuff we don't have enough of. There are 2 forms, productive and material scarcity. Robots are about to end productive scarcity just in time for us to use them to mine the solar system.
We just heard the other day that in Scandinavia it works great and the public there love it. Single-payer Medicare for all is the way to go, this "professor" sounds like he gets checks from the Insurance industries.
The health system sucks in Denmark. But you are right that people love the system. They don't know any better. But people are beginning til take notice of Switzerland. Lower taxes and much better welfare and much richer.
Demand drives an economy and if there’s not enough people who have the money to fulfill that demand, products and services, no matter how wonderful they are, will not be bought in sufficient frequency to keep the economy strong.
The only thing that this dude said with any factual benefit in reality is the abolition of the war on drugs. We require a higher minimum wage, we require public schooling, and we require a progressive tax code if we want to be a modern society.
An economist who still doesn't know how banks operate. From the report "Money creation in the modern economy" by Bank of England: Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
Does trickle down economics work? Of-course, in the sense that the rich having to pay less taxes means they have more to invest and spend on consumption, that helps the economy. But republicans and libertarians don't JUST reduce the taxes on the rich because in order to be able to do that they need to cut spending on society and education or even worse increase the taxes on the working and middle classes, the negatives of those two things outweigh the positive of trickle down economics. The Middle class and working class spend a much higher percentage of savings and tax breaks on the economy compared to the upper class. If you are going to cut taxes cut the taxes on the working and middle class because they need it more and it helps the economy more than the alternative - A member of the upper class.
As an economist, who went to both a neo-Keynesian school and Austrian school, I can tell you that both institutes thought me that less regulation, taxes, tariffs, and laws on immigration help the economy. I always question and ask Pakman's credibility on economic issues, but am always criticized in the comments section for supporting Laissez-faire. I am not a doctor, therefore, I don't have radical opinions on medical procedures and surgeries. So why should someone, who is not educated about economics, hold such radical ideas? Trickle down simply means cutting taxes and regulations for all, not just corporations. This includes mom and pop shops, who can't afford to pay healthcare and insurance for workers. Some might argue that "if you can't offer healthcare, 'just wage', and benefits you shouldn't be in business". Let's look at that argument from an economic viewpoint. Say that these regulations increase costs drastically for mom and pop shops who pay higher marginal cost than large corporations due to economies of scale. Economics of scale, the more you purchase the lower the marginal cost and profit per additional unit. Let's say those mom and pop shops go out of business. Keep in mind mom and pop shops employ 53% of the US. If they go out of business, competition for corporations decreases. Less competition allows businesses to increase their prices for higher profits, hurting consumers. You and I. Also, the rising number of unemployment could lead companies to cut wages and benefits due to the surplus of labor. Competition drives wages up and prices down. Everyone benefits. We've seen this for 2 centuries now. During the industrial revolution standard of living increased by 3% a year along with wages. Today, countries with little regulation and taxes, China (to an extent) and Eastern European countries are seeing a new wave of industrial revolution. Look at the Chinese diets for example. Pork consumption has skyrocketed due to increased standard of living. But what do I know, I'm just an economist
The fact that the economic hierarchy of CEO to employee sees them earn progressively less clearly is an example of money trickling down. 'Trickle-down' is the pretty clear economic stance that not everyone earns exactly the same amount. This is evident in every economic system on earth.
10:48 that was such an easy argument to shoot down and I think David answered it very poorly. What he presented was simply a false analogy. Healthy food doesn't get cheaper if the government gives it to everyone. *Health care does.* That's why people with universal healthcare pay way less per capita than Americans. It's a win/win - coverage for all and much more cost efficient. Anyone with some insight can see this.
Julian Nikolay Krogh-Fredriksen And does anyone object to socialist firefighting? Why should MY tax money go to putting the fire out in some lazy cheap SOB’s house who won’t pay for a firefighting subscription? Oh wait, that lazy SOB is NEXT DOOR? In that case, what are you waiting for, roll the trucks before the fire spreads to MY house! Come to think of it, the “lazy” guy who doesn’t go to the hospital might have something contagious ...
If people shopped for healthcare the way they did most other types of services, prices would come down. Problem is, people like me with health insurance just make their co-payment and really don't care what providers are charging the insurance company. The federal government could help by abolishing state laws that prevent insurers from competing across state lines.
He called Trump's BS out in 2016. Hit the nail on the head. Everything he said we see coming to pass. But great debate, very informative and thought provoking.
+Cheep Cheeps I've heard people call him paranoid (mostly Keynesians), but I've never heard anyone call him a loser. He was one of the few in the mainstream media who predicated the severity of the housing crash. He also predicted the student loan crisis. The losers are all the talking heads in the mainstream media who called him crazy. I'd love to hear David talk with him. I'm sure it would be epic. They're both extremely bright guys.
+Anthony P Yeah he correctly predicted those things, but so did a lot of other people you just don't know about them because they are not ever invited on "mainstream" shows. The mainstream hosts who called him crazy are definitely losers and dumba**es, but that doesn't mean he isn't also kind of out there with a lot of his ideas... it just means he didn't buy into the bulls**t the mainstream hosts did.
Aaron Hoy Yeah, I realize he wasn't the only one that accurately predicted the housing crash. I think people should give him credit for being one of the few to do it on mainstream media, though. He got a lot of flack for it at the time. Regardless, I think David and Peter would have a very interesting convo. They're both informed and uncorrupted, but also represent different sides of the spectrum.
Insurances are a completely different type of products and services than all others in the way they interact with the market. You cannot compare health insurance with food production. However you can compare the health industry with the food industry.
Except that IT DOES: “Professors James Gwartney and Richard Stroup (1982) have examined the changes in the distribution of the tax burden following the Mellon tax cut of the 1920s and the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s. In the case of the Mellon tax cuts, named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, marginal tax rates that reached 73 percent in 1921 were reduced to a top rate of 25 percent by 1926. The effect on the economy was positive: “The economy’s performance during the 1921-26 period was quite impressive. Price stability accompanied a rapid growth in real output.” Gwartney and Stroup found the shift in the tax burden equally impressive. By 1926 personal income tax revenues from returns reporting $10,000 or less dropped to 4.6 percent of total collections, compared to 22.5 percent in 1921. In contrast total income tax revenues from returns by people with incomes of $100,000 or more rose to 50.9 percent in 1926 from 28.1 percent to 1921. They conclude that “as a result of the strong response of high-income taxpayers, the tax cuts of the 1920s actually shifted the tax burden to the higher income brackets even though the rate reductions were greatest in this area.”Their analysis of the Kennedy tax rate reductions (which cut the top rate from 91 to 70 percent) yields similar results. In 1965, after the tax rate reductions, collections from the highest 5 percent of income earners rose to 38.5 percent of the total from 35.6 percent in 1963. In contrast, the proportion of income tax revenues from the bottom 50 percent of tax returns fell from 10.9 percent in 1963 to 9.5 percent in 1965. In testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 1984, Gwartney noted that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) yielded similar results. The reduction of the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 50 percent cut the tax rates paid by high-income earners by as much as 28.6 percent, but tax revenues collected from the rich increased. Revenues from the top 1.36 percent of taxpayers, the group that most benefited from the rate reductions, rose from $58.0 billion in 1981 to $60.5 billion in 1982. The proportion of the total income tax collected from the top 1.36 percent of taxpayers rose to 21.8 percent in 1982 from20.4 percent in 1981. The tax liability of low-income taxpayers fell both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total. Taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of income earners fell from $21.7 billion in 1981 to $19.5 billion 1982, and the share shrank from 7.6 percent in 1981 to 7.0 percent in 1982. Gwart ney concludes that: “far from creating a windfall gain for the rich, as some have charged, ERTA actually shifted the burden of the income tax toward taxpayers in upper brackets, including those who received the largest rate reductions as the result of the 50 percent rate ceiling.” www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/17/supply-side-economics-theory-results/
I don't agree with David Pakman, but It's refreshing to hear someone from the left actually allowing their opponent to speak, not shouting them down, not constantly interrupting, and not resorting to accusations of every form of prejudice and bigotry under the sun. He's also got a point about absolute libertarians. I'm a libertarian, but an absolute libertarian society is basically Mad Max. Any ideology followed to its absolute will always result in disaster, and libertarianism is no exception.
BarrySlisk yeah its almost like a healthy balance is needed. A strong capitalist system with a healthy social safety net and regulatory check and balances.
So there is currently such a regulatory burden in place that it hinders businesses from thriving in the US? Deregulation will somehow fix this and increase demand?
Yes. I remember Peter Schiff has talked a lot about this. He moved his business to Puerto Rico to avoid regulation. One of his problems was regarding new employees. Once you reach a certain number of employees some regulation kicks in which makes it hard to expand. Don't remember the specifics though. For this reason he would only hire foreigners. As I typed this I googled and found this article by him: humanevents.com/2011/09/21/the-ceo-who-got-fined-for-hiring-too-many-people/
David is 100% correct about health care, we tried health care for profit for 50 years and it completely failed. Morally first, health care for all, then profits in other industries. We need to be humanitarians first, then let your fuckin GREED run rampant America.
So you say "it stinks and is unrealistic delusion" and you don't provide any reasoning or evidence. Nice. I can tell you really do know "the libertarian position on economic issues". Arrogant.
