Inequality: Are the rich cashing in? | Head to Head
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- "You don't want to make the rich poor; you want to make the poor richer," says Arthur Laffer, an economist who laid the intellectual foundations for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's right-wing policies in the 1980s.
But should we really be cutting services to the poor while we cut taxes for the rich? Has the spread of 'Reaganomics' really helped the world's poor?
In this episode of Head to Head, Mehdi Hasan challenges Arthur Laffer on whether free market economics still makes sense in the wake of the financial crisis, and on his famous 'Laffer Curve,' through which he advocates cutting taxes on high earners.
Arthur Laffer has been described as "the father of supply-side economics".
Joining the discussion are Ann Pettifor, Director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Faiza Shaheen, Head of Inequality at Save the Children UK, and Adam Memon, Head of Economic Research at the Centre for Policy Studies.
More from Head to Head on:
CZcams - aje.io/4a46
Facebook - / ajheadtohead
Twitter - / ajheadtohead
Website - aljazeera.com/h...
Prosperity? I've been working all my life, hard labour and servitude and never prospered. Only pride is I'm not a burden to the society.
the poor in third world countrys employed 16 hours a day to only afford food,wtf
at least they have a job... right? especially the children in the cobalt mines for your phones.
@CraZy Jay well said. i was being facetious.
I was raised here in the us and had to do the same thing… when I had a job I would work 36 hours straight, 7 days a week 12 hours a day ,2weeks straight… and it was only for food and rent…the state did not wanna help me, I couldn’t get a job cause nobody wanted to hire me… and when I had a job I didn’t mind working all I wanted to do Is pay for rent and eat.
@@TheCBC1984 I totally agree with you… it was really hard for me to get a job.. due to racism…
@@zackabee5498 "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others" -George Orwell
This is extremely high quality content compared to the rubbish content delivered by Fox News, CNN, MSNBC.
AJ is and always will be the a leader in real news, reporting, discussions and documentation :) my life, thought and personality wouldn't be the same without!
Back in the '80's I saw some graffiti on an overpass in Detroit. It read "Reaganomics Phase II; Kill the survivors". Turned out to be quite prophetic.
So true!!!!
Great presenter and audience need more interviews such as this by aljazeera
keep it going Al Jazeera.
Laffing all the way to the bank since 1980.
At 36:25. A telling leap in logic: working people = rich people, non-working people = poor people. This is at the root of a number of flawed reasoning in the US, coming from all levels of the population: 1) poor people deserve to be poor because they are lazy 2) I work hard, therefore I am rich (and so I support policies that favor the rich) 3) Related: I work hard, so I will without a doubt become rich and to prepare for that day, I support policies that favor the rich. 4) misplaced admiration for the rich because they must be the hardest working people on Earth.
Agnes Kim u don’t know much about economics, do u?
WorshipinIdols wow, REALLY insightful response. Take a bow. Please enlighten us all with your expertise. (Only joking - you probably have no clue about anything judging by your pathetic comment)
Arthur Laffer is a propagandist for the rich!
It wasn't enough that they had the "best pasture" (!) they had to get out there and push and shove at the sickly and the weakly, TRAMPLE EVERYTHING DOWN with their feet and also pollute all the air and water (Lamentations 3:34-36, Jeremiah 8:14-15, 17*-22*, & --5:26---28 "they do NOT DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THE POOR" (but they will teach you about-- if you first write a big check! See Micah 3:5* about those modern LYING PROPHETS, Jer, 5:12 )
"The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion."
"Political campaigns today are all sideshows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches."
"Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses."
- Edward Bernays
He states the most obvious truth about how it all works at 12:50 - "Because rich people - because they're rich - they can get around higher taxes. They can hire lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists..." And that's the story in a nut-shell.
Even when a higher tax rate is implemented to, supposedly, level the playing field the rich dodge paying by inventing "legal" loopholes, shelters, etc. The rich design the economy to work for THEM and have access to all the tools to continue enriching themselves.
The poor have no economic tools available to them. We are told by Laffer, and others like him, "it is hard work that breeds economic success (bullshit, of course, then construction workers would all be rich) - and that, if you are not rich, you must not work hard. Never you mind, what us rich people are doing with our tax shelters, corporate subsidies, wage freezing, union busting, etc."
The rich will keep spouting the same ol' bullshit - as demonstrated by Laffer, here, in 2013 - while they rig the whole thing in their favor. They will never willingly allow a fair economic system to be created.
You said the keywords, design the economy to work for them, you work hard and you are not a millionaire or billionaire and they tell you that's your fault. Don't make your problem our problem!
no one should make so much money they can afford to buy their own politician.
No they can and should make as much as they like , it’s the politicians role to resist being bought .
His laugh is contagious. He takes things on a light note.
his name is laffer!
This was really fun to watch.
hello Mehdi Hassan, you're show is the best to get an insight about the various issues in the world and you're one of the best presenter and journalist there is in the whole of 21st century.. Hoping that you continue with head to head.. Expecting more personalities from Pakistan and showcasing of the issues in Pakistan... Keep up the good work AlJazeera
Arthur laffer is in denial. Plain and simple.
meanwhile America's economy is beating the fuck out of you European fascists and anti-Semites.
SanctreMalleus You're a fool is you believe Americas economic numbers are real LOL.. This was the same thing we saw in 2007-2008.. you really think everything just turned around for the better? You're an amateur.
takeover08
you are a fucking moron, just watch your beloved episode of head to head on the European Union. EVERY MEMBER of the audience admits that America is fucking you EU morons economically.
SanctreMalleus When you say "America" who in particular are you referring to? Who is doing the "fucking" ?
Yeah he tried to dodge every single question. Glad there was as smart and sharp interviewer as Mehdi who didn't let him escape so easily.
Well done, Medi Hassan ! This shows the riddle of hypocracy and how blatant it is.
This basically, exposes the capitalist ideology being totally self serving and in denial.
Get richer on the backs of the increasing poverty you create.
Capitalism is self serving because people seek their self interest. However, as a bi-product everybody benefits from the goods and services that are produced.
But I see your point - we should keep trying to create a Marxist society until we get it right.
howbout inventing something new?
Who invents it? Who is forced upon the system? How is it implemented? Before we get can get to Z, we first must get from point A to point B. I live in the real world. There is nothing wrong with building a latter to heaven; just so long as we don't destroy humanity in the process.
there is only heaven on earth.
we are simply not meant to see it.
This man doesn't have time to explain why he doesn't have time to explain.
Wow the honesty of Arthur laffer's last sentence surpriced me. "Im not in to the social issues like you guys are, but Im really into creating economic growth"
Well whats the purpose of the economy and growth if it doesnt make the lives of the general puplic better.
And also the inequality is slowing growth according to the OECD and many others but he simply cant accept that.
But most of all relative poverty matters, inequality is correlatid with a whole lot of social problems like increasing crime, worse public health, mental illness, longevity and racism to name a few.
Have money is better than not having it. It doesn't matter what a piece of paper says that gives you rights if you don't have anything to eat.
First eat, then worry about civil liberties.
gideondavid30 Of course having money is better than not having it. Shared growth is faster growth. That's what the research by the international monetary fund and the OECD concludes. They are not in any way leftist organisations.
Shared growth is not faster growth. Shared growth is the socialist notion that everybody gets a piece of the action. To grow an economy, you need to let industry thrive. The only argument for taxation is for basic government services ... not growing an economy.
For a thriving industry you need to have many people with high purshasing power. If too much of the wealth is in the hands of a few you get less consumption.
"The report found that an increase in income among the richest and the poorest affects a country’s overall growth in different ways. “If the income share of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth.”
www.ibtimes.com/imf-study-says-inequality-hurting-growth-calls-wealth-redistribution-1968563
www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm
I tend to trust research by the IMF and OECD because they are organisations whos main purpose is promoting growth. If you dont trust them, what do they do wrong in their research?
@@martinguila of course they are very left leaning
mehdi hasan he is great man my allah give long life
he is fighting for religion
@@jafarsultan9206 I am a Muslim also, but please don't bring the religion here unnecessarily because he was not talking or dealing with the religious subject here, so, please. If you do this then you will be inviting the hatreds to jump in with their nonsense.
Arthur is a honest person. admits when he is wrong.unlike most.
Too bad he's always wrong.
What kind of interview is this? Why are you asking him questions Mehdi -- if you are not letting him speak?
Because he wants the guest to simply answer the questions. He would run out of time and we would have learnt nothing if he just lets the guest blabber on about another topic.
at exactly 29 minutes he was very similar to Jack Nicholson!!! Even to the echo of his voice!
TheMrMongolia his twin or the same person. Look @ the eyes and eyebrows. IJS
And the lady with the white hair sounds like Sharon Osborne 😁
A mans ways/wisdom are always rigth in his own eyes/mind..Old saying.
a nice cleaver spokesman for the rich and the super rich
Laffer: "The way to make the poorer richer is by making the richer richer who will then go and make the poorer richer. What we CANNOT do is make the poorer richer by making the poorer richer. The riches MUST go through the rich people. It's the only way it will work!! You have to trust me on this one!!!"
Both are beast .. Well said Mehedi Hasan .. I am from Bangladesh
In short, no one knows anything.
One of the best economic debate ever 😎😎😎
Does anyone believe Laffer has a shred of honesty?
I know I don't.
So rich people, who could create all of these jobs that would make them richer, are waiting for lower taxes that they aren’t going to pay anyway. Makes sense.
Apparently, the people advocating about the social issues don't really comprise of the people actually subject to the social problems, I doubt anyone in the audience represents someone who actually undergoes the problems caused by Thacher's policies..
Why??? How can you be so sure??
@@nataliekhanyola5669 probably because people who are very poor can’t afford going to places where talks and debates take place, they are too busy working or they won’t be able to pay for basic services.
Soon as he presents the fact about higher revenues with lower taxes everyone switches it to economic growth. The UK economy is 'growing' apparently but are we any better off, more productive, richer? No. These people who correlate high taxes with economic growth often in favour of Keynesianism. But if you want to spend money wisely as a government then you surely want the most revenue which doesn't hinder peoples standard of living.
IMO, income tax should be removed and sales tax should increase.
Therefore, if the rich invest their money it is good for the economy, and if they are buying a lot they will pay their share of tax.
what a smug crook
hello trendy lefty friends!
An Economist from the Chicago School of thought talking to a journalist who understands only Keynesian Economics, in front of an audience influenced by Marxist economics. That is what is wrong with the world.
Loved your observation.
Thanks my friend.
This is - " WEST ."*
Step fathers and step mothers - no account. *
Social service.*
Someone is always paying for the rich man s wealth. The always ongoing scandal.
I dont think it is,and i dont think it not. sums him up .
Increasing Direct Tax does not act counter productive to economic growth. On the contrary, it encourages investors to aim for a higher return. It's the direct tax which does pull the economic growth down by countering the consumption and curbing the demand.
This was one of the worst guests I have ever seen he laughed and lies his way through the whole thing and some of the crowd were really childish
It wasn't a serious topic in the grand scheme of things. Some of us rich, some are poor. That's the long and short of it.
Mehdi needs to let the people he interviews answer the questions he asks. It's really annoying when he cuts them off
If they dont answer the question properly, or make up some long explanation with no relation to the question, he cuts them off. He speaks nonsense.
@@ejfjr4371 I agree that he should give some more time for his guests to say; however, I strongly disagree with you that he "speaks nonsense", in fact, he always talks, not only sense but with strong evidence!
If the speaker makes a fallacious point, I want Medhi to interject clarity… I don’t need to listen to a 2-minute statement based on incorrect information… i.e. 14:47 for example
The only thing you can deduce mathematically from two points intersecting Y axis is that it is not a linear equation. To assume that the curve have to be parabolic is bad math.
Edward Snowden I understand that statement from a common sense perspective. It may be more like a mesa as opposed to a curve. Why anyone would assume the interactions of billions of people can be so simplistic is beyond me.
fmlAllthetime Ah, yes, you brought up another important point. Professor Steve Keen in his book debunking economics pointed out the "Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu theorem" which shows that the aggregate demand does not follow the individual demand. i.e. for individual, the more expensive a good or services is, the less demand he will have, for the aggregate demand however, such restriction does not exist for various reasons (property speculations is an example where demand may increase because the price increases). You are correct, interactions of billions of people will not be simplistic. As complex adaptive environment, the economy would be more like a chess game of 7 billions creatures with bounded rationality. But this guy is not interested in the truth, he got paid to say what people with lots of money and power wants him to say.
You are speaking of bubbles and speculation. Self interest still drives everybody. People want to make money off of property and thus they take the gamble.
Yes, the market is complicated so why are we trying to regulate it?
I WOULD rather have wealth inequity reduced by lowering the wealth on anyone who can afford to buy politicians afford to be above the law.. afford to be a global citizen as a haven from the destruction you wreak on your own country. yes.. half the problem is the corruption caused by their grossly human rights violating level of wealth. and cutting taxes do not make people who do not work in the first place work harder.. rich people do not work.. their money works for them. once you got 2 million to play with.. you never have to work again. so perhaps we should cap wealth at some level near that. as you progress much above that then your hitting lvls where your wealth can corrupt things in your favor to further enrich yourself at others expense..
The problem with these type a debates is it’s the 1%ers vs the 0.00001%ers . The working class can’t win 😂
islam only tax 2.5% on wealth for the rich and those who have income less than the threshold, dont pay tax.
and the money is used to help the poor by encouraging them to use the money to do business.
hence, people will have more income.
Mohammad Nasrul hanif Mohd Noor except for the poll tax in the beginning where u have to surrender your brain when joining the religion.
That's why the middle east has such spectacularly prosperous economies!
They bash Arthur very radically but he still did so well and I still agree with him that you cannot tax an economy into prosperity! It's never happened and the end result of socialism is everybody is equally poor not equally rich & leaves everybody dependent on the government! There will always be poor & rich what Art is saying is the best we can do is make taxes encourage the rich to hire more, produce more, & create more jobs while also making it more attractive for workers to work more!
I don't care what the "gap" is as long as I am not compelled to take a "job" because I need the money. I much rather perform activities that I believe are important and have meaning.
You must be doing something you love if you options like that. The rest of us got bills to pay and do what it takes, legally, to keep the lights on..
I love this guy hahaha. I'm a Capitalist. The Problem in America is that Republicans give Corporations tax cuts.
I am on the side of this reporter, but I also hate it when people ask questions without giving their opposing debater reasonable time to answer.
I ASK STREET SWEEPER MAN 'DO YOU THINK TAXES FOR THE RICH SHOULD GO UP?' HIS ANSWER WAS 'NO'. I ASK WHY? HE SAID 'AM GOING TO BE RICH SOME DAY'
So true.
tough discussion. more should be like this, but sadly news networks like cnn dont want to upset people cause they wont come back on the channel.
I am a huge fan of your shows Mehdi and also a fairly left-oriented person, since I am a happy Finn paying around 40% of my salary to tax for what I believe is the greater good. My point is that I think you and the panel didn't give the author in this show his rightful place to argue his point. Usually, on the issues where you seem to disagree, you have been making a statement like "let's assume you are correct on this issue, then bla bla bla". Why did you not let the discussion go there? I am now left with more interest on what flat tax could do, but believe (and I mean believe since I don't hold any real knowledge on this topic) that if the experts would have opened up their advanced profecies on what a flat tax possible WOULD do, instead of debating what it have and have not done in the past, then I suppose I would have had better reasons to dismiss the theory. Now it is just living on like a utopia in my mind where all people are getting richer, so that everyone gets what they need, and on top of this we see some extremely rich people. Morally I can not consider that wrong, I would be totally fine with living at the "bottom of society" as long as I have everything I need and government assures to take care of me also when I am sick or old. I don't feel jealous that some people or institutions have even more as long as it is not away from anybody else but rather contributes to the greater good. But as I said, I don't know if this theory can accomplish this in reality. I don't have that knowledge but would have been great to hear the audience argument over that part. Keep up the good work!
more growth can be achieved in slavery than in a society of justice and income equality but we do not need that as human beings. the indicators of growth for drug lords, gangs. thugs, elected deceivers, people in various influential fields who profits from deception and trickery, are different from those who want a prosperous and just society where everyone has equal opportunity to be economically prosperous.
At least his model of bailing out after recession are correct, the boom after 2008 was due to digital revolution, otherwise it would have been the same, like it is now, higher unemployment, low growth etc
AT 16 :58 the rich got richer many times over and the increase in tax was camparable to dust in a big desert. the overall ratio helped them being more richer.
People working for minimum wage and less, generally work much harder than those making millions. Does anyone actually believe that someone will work less for a million, than ten million?
Arthur Laffer is hilarious! Did he say he doesn't use the Laffer Curve in his analysis in his economic arguments anymore but he still advocates it as an economic tool of how taxation formulations should be done in market economics?!?!?
I grew up poor and I'm still poor. I see that the people who want to raise taxes have never created a job. Their all talk and no action.
And cutting taxes has???
I can only see this from my point of view as a small business owner that is struggling to break even. I would definitely give my 20 odd employees pay rises and also hire more staff if the tax rate was lower. God how I wish I could.
How many large busubesess do? Amazon, walmart, apple, nike, nestle and soooooo many others don't even pay a tax, and yet their employees are overworked, exploited or make little to nothing.
That seems to be what happens when you deregulate industries and cut taxes for the rich/ corporations.
Arthur is another brick on the wall with a head full of empty sound. Mediocrity prevails at every level of government. As it was said so correctly by the American Henry Brooks Adams by 1907, “Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.” No progress yet in 2019, worst in fact.
1. no one who makes less than 2x a living wage should have to pay any taxes.
2. there should be NO min wage.. rather there should be a maximum wage 10xthe min wage. NO ONE at any job shoudl make more than 10x the lowest paid worker at the same company/govt etc. With a max wage law.. even janitors would be making 500,000 a year.
CAPITALISM? = YOU HAVE TO WALK YOUR DOG. SOCIALISM?= THINGS BECOME SO BAD THAT YOU HAVE TO EAT YOUR DOG!!
Instead of tax cuts use employment credits or rebates
"Head to head in the street
Could leave you dead on your feet" Pun
Neither argument is helpful. There are good points on both sides. The culture has to change.
The main issues with the economy are over population and superficial markets. Of course the economy is going to collapse when spending tightens and people stop buying garbage like luxuries and cosmetics, but won't stop spending on vices like tobacco, alcohol and gambling. The issue with American and British economies are the impact their cultures have on them.
This was really good
This head to head isn't even a fair debate it's just a entire room vs one person!
Yes, because the rest of the room had it enough from this one person's stupid policies and his contribution that only destructed all those people's lives, that why!
There are 2 economists that agree with laffer.
COME ON mehdi let the arthur for making sense
why does he sound exactly like Reagan
The crash of 2007 caused unemployment to sike at 27% has not gone down until 2017,I left &moved to Europe
Man… I wish mehdi could have interviewed Milton Friedman for this. I would pay to watch that “economist” roasted to crisp by mehdi’s wit and real world logic haha
Just keep on giving me more it works for me. Rest can eat cake. It shows.
In my understanding the major problem of laffer's theory is it assumes indviduals as innocent lawabiding and moral citzens, but in a reality what i see and understand is indviduals try to maximize their gain at any cost.
It’s actually the exact opposite. Capitalism relies on each individual pursuing his own interests (within the law) while socialism relies on trying to provide for others. The actual effect of capitalism, however, has been beneficial to everyone at every level of society. Socialism fails because everyone thinks they’re responsible for everyone else and nobody is responsible for himself.
Hell yeah, they're cashing in
Do they ever ?
GDP is an insufficient measure of an economy. it presumes that resource extraction is a positive behavior for an economy. this would be true if the resource is never ending, however, all resources are finite on earth. should our economic system reward how many resources we use or how many we save? I would prefer to strive towards a system that allows humanity to survive as long as possible. the sky won't fall for a billion or 2 years, continued population growth and resource exploitation will cause humanity to fall far sooner.
I agree with him
the tasks might be helpful but in my point of view in most causes it`s not because it doesn`t go to the people who need it , and it doesn`t help the society to get better
Mehdi Hasan is attacking Arthur Laffer too harsh. And I say it as someone who disagrees with him.
EDIT: I think that the fact that richest people taxes go up after lowering the taxes just shows how much money they make. Of course they are going to pay more taxes, because they make more money, therefore even more of the profits of lower income classes (god how I hate that word). The problem though is that the richest think only about profit.
I think Carol Quigley said it well. Institutions work well at the start when created by people to serve some purpose. In time however those same institutions tend to server theirs own purpose and go for survival and growth. It might be embedded in our minds I don't know but that seems to be happening to the economy. Instead of growth of whole society at the similar rate, which economy should be about - to improve whole society. How it seems to work nowadays though is that its not just drastically improving lives of few people and but in the same time giving just as much as its needed to the other people so they don't go on strike or protests.
And since Mr. Laffer mentioned Hong Kong I think those tax free countries are making so much money because they have banks there and they steal money from other countries by low taxes so those big companies go there to hide from taxes in countries where they do theirs business. And that is also what Mr. Laffer mentioned, that those rich know how to avoid taxes, but it is exactly because some people profit on it.
Also if I remember well from the economy class about theory of games that is one fun game about a well in a desert. If all people using that well will take the same amount so it won't dry out, all prosper same way and all get the same share. Once someone starts taking more, the others suffer. There is also question how do you know nobody is taking more, so you might be taking more just for that reason, though you hurt other people by taking more because they have to take less so the well doesn't go dry. So either someone suffers all suffer all because others also take more than they should. And that seems to be happening in the real world, the top 1% of 1% and theirs friends are taking almost all the water from the well while other people can't afford proper health care and school for theirs kids they create huge symbols of wealth.
Would be also interesting to see a question about the study that shows money effecting brain as cocain, therefore money being a drug, which I think we can agree that it is for many people in this world, especially the rich.
+Azzataky Also I forgot one thing in my tl:dr post. How those who support today economic system view the issues like the money lending theory where rich where supposed to lend money to poor so they can use that money to make investments they couldn't afford to make before. In reality this theory actually is vice versa. Rich borrow more money from the banks to invest because they have the best information about market as also as we learned in past decade they like to manipulate certain things to get even bigger profits. But poor have no idea about investments mostly so they don't borrow money to do that. Reason might be also family or helping others and not caring about profits and money. Our society is based on money, shouldn't it be based on humanity and cooperation instead? Aren't those two things that make our society better every century or is it just money? Is money our new god in 20th and 21st century?
i actually read all of your post =D so you have to give me at least a like for it, lol .. I agree with your message that society should be based on trust and not money or profits.. People should be given wages for the work they do and keep the matter clean and fair and the labor profession should be respected and it should be propagated by making them good salary offers.. I did want to ask what is this informational advantage about investments that the rich have over the poor. Can you give any specific examples?
syed shuja I can't give you a specific example as I'm not one of those rich people. :D But from what I've been reading + told by our professor and it makes sense the rich can invest better because they know other rich people - they get good information on when and where to invest. Also they get better financial advisors etc. They are used to invest so they are within the society that deals with it. Poor people on the other hand do not invest or not so much so they don't get many information on how to invest well. Also they usually don't know many rich people so they don't get to the information. Depends ofc on who you know, but generally I'd say it fits.
I gave you +1 , hope you happy. :D
I'm slowly working on learning more about economics because as I see it as an issue I want to know more to see if its really that bad as I think or if its actually not. Honestly I think its probably worse than I think but it can be fixed and could be probably better than I think it could be.
In some documentaries you can hear people saying that even the financial bankers don't understand some financial products. It kinda goes back to institutionalisation of things that Caroll Quigley talks about in Evolution of Civilisations. And it seems to happen after investment banks could merge with normal banks. They don't care now about customers but about theirs wealth only. But problem on getting info from documentaries is I can't be 100% sure if its true or not or what info I don't have that might change the perspective. Though I've seen many and information seems to be in multiple ones that fits the picture.
Sorry for too long posts. :D
Great debate...3:30 -4:45 in a way the gast has a point...
Africa is not a country.
+Prince Malcolm Yes ! But they have been exploiting us as one! so Africa should stand together at leas to choose better exploiter at this time.
Didn't expect to see so many allegedly "educated" people believe that economics is a zero-sum game...
Tristan Henriksson Edwards There is a false dichotomy offered by the "free market" neo-con economists (aptly named), that you have either "Inequal wealth" or "equal poverty". This assume that INEQUALITY DRIVES WEALTH, or at least necessary for wealth creation to exists. But when you look at the main cause of wealth, it can be 99.99% sourced into the increase in technology, whether it is in form of better production method, organization, automation, etc. Steam Engine to Fossil Fuels to Internet age drag everyone out of the poverty, NOT tax cuts to the rich. Without the improvement in technology, economics IS a zero sum game. Do you think iron ore and other world's non renewable resources grow on trees for everyone to enjoy?
Edward Snowden Free-markets work in an Adam Smith style country where everyone started off equal, that has a strong legal framework for disagreements. This isn't the case of the US, and yet people would like to use a good man who would've never intended his works to be used like this in the utmost of dispicable ways. Pure Neo-Liberalism would only work in a fair world, and we are far from that, and furthermore, Adam Smith never argued many of the points people attribute to Neo-Liberal economics in the first place. Fucking disgusting abdication of the truth from these people.
fmlAllthetime The issue is that even if everyone started equally, they will not ends up equal. The most common saying amongst philosophers are that "freedom" and "equality" are inherently incompatible with each other. If you give freedom for the people to do a lot of different things, then it is inevitable that they will ends up in different places (i.e. inequality is the inevitable result of freedom). But the issue is not whether we have to choose on or the other, the issue is that Economics at its very core is a Zero Sum Game. It is insufficient that everyone starts equally, there must be some degree of re-distribution to keep the "game" going. The argument that "if you keep everyone equal, the pie will not expand, or even shrink" does not match the empirical data, and it does not even add up to the simplest of logic. If I have all the factors of production, all the fiat currency, all the property rights, what need do I have to keep trading with anyone else? It is, by its logical conclusion, a virtual slavery that is not upheld with chain and iron, but property rights. For trade to exist, both sides must have something to trade that the other side wants or in some rare cases, needs. With automation and improvement in technology, even the last bastion of trade item - manual labour, is diminishing fast. With the current price of education, it is becoming harder and harder for people to break the poverty cycle. In the end (or even as it is now), those who owns the property rights (capital) control the world, and the rest are at best their labour slave, at worst, excluded from the benefits of modern economy altogether. PS: don't you find it an oxymoron that so called "free market" needs "strong law"? There is no such thing as "free market", market exists because we are not free. We are bound by the law, and thus market exist.
Edward Snowden I don't care about equality of outcomes at all times. Of course some will be lazier, smarter, more industrious, less industrious etc., and that should be expected and allowed. What happens that's crazy though is we allow huge inheritances to be passed down, and we continue to buy products from people that employ CEO's that make 500 times their average employees. It's fucking ludicrous.
Of course some will have to redistribute their wealth by choice. I would honestly (hypothetically speaking if course) rather have that opposed to it being done by force.
Private property rights in a way are a good thing. I put down the risk for this machine, I put the risk down for the table you eat lunch on at work etc. etc. etc.. It makes sense that one would want to be compensated for that. Where it gets ludicrous though, is when people say they own land.... you *cannot* own the earth. It is not in any way shape or form a human product, or even a mixing of the two. Earth just is. It was here before any man and will be here after any man.
Anyways, it has been a nice conversation. I don't know if there's a way to fix this honestly. It'll probably have to be 100 different little solutions imo.
my income went DOWN.!!!!!!
Here is a example of what people can do with money once they get it NO MATTER HOW!
when me and my husband tried to get married, after many attempts to get documents from greece with help from his mother we found out that the she and several other relatives cut of the rest of his family since 30 years where responsible for stalking and defaming him and his other brother to women from fear that they would reach greece and discover they had a due inheritance if they got married
since he discovered this was going on his siblins and mother had already built a false criminal profile on him and his brothers with help of mercenaries filing false domestic violence reports, claims filed by his own sister pretending to be other people and friends deceived into believing if their targets did nothing it was better to try to lie to police then not at all because they had nothing to loose, WHICH WAS true in the USA since police dismissed the reports with no evidence..BUT they gave papers of it to them which they used outside the US in Greece and deceived local authorities into believing multiple complaints where filed against my husband even though by people from other parts of the US while he was in europe and since they cant check to verify this or could but rather not bother they assume the information can be applied until a court does,
this is what part of his family did with a portion of my husbands multimillion dollar inheritance, their response to our discovery now is using the same false information with CPS child protective services in the country we are now in where we discovered we have been defamed too, all this thanks to his family having in laws who work in family courts.
do the rich cash in...IF THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE LAW as i just demonstrated above i say they not only cash in but ROB who ever they can take advantage of, because if my husbands relatives never got to this money in greece they captured illegally he would of never been stalked from fear he would expose them in time, his brother lives in panama and has a huge villa, so there you go!
I think Laffer and his theory is right on a lot of things, lower taxes are helpful for everyone. There are other things in society that perhaps might force changes to his theory such as war, and military spending, why should everyone pay for it. This is what I have noticed whenever there is economic debates, is the whole concept of war does not exist, they did mention the tax being 92% under Eisenhower, why was that, because of ww2. I'm sure a low flat tax would be good and it would work, the economy would be strong, especially when there is a long period of peace.
I challenge everyone to look up the "Kansas Experiment".
someone should tell this host that talking over your guest doesn't make you right.
Agree this guy has that habit.
not increase tax on work but on profit. not on labor but on the rich who only sit at their homes doing nothing and over spending on stupid and foolish activities so called luxury and leisure and their income increases while people doing hard labor and hard work, their income either stays the same or decreases due to inflation.
Long live freedom and democratic communism
Sometimes I pity Mr hasan lol brutally ignorant that laffer
OMG Mehdi, let the man speak.. he is wrong, but give him the time to show the full extend of his dillusion
Mr. Arthur the so called 'rich' and 'poor' people both were created by the powerful groups which owned guns. Through the means of guns they devised a system that serves their interest in order to exploit the available resources in the universe. There is no one who is born 'poor' or 'rich'! if the unfair system is destroyed then the individuals who are born into this universe with no doubt are just equal and at the same level of ownership and access to resources on earth. So, fair distribution of the world's resources is a must! Resources from all over the world is taken to the USA, you need to have a wider global perspective. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is insane, which must be minimized.
Arthur Laffer did well to defend himself. I loved his line on sin taxes: "Americans don't like drunk people smoking while we shoot ourselves"
Reaganomics! War for profit.
If EVERY country in the world had the EXACT same policies (and, for example, a China could not benefit in terms of overall trade advantage via paying a mere pittance to workers)... exactly how useful would austerity be, compared to taxing all strata towards less overall inequality?
Trickle down economics does not work.
Lowering the taxes is bad in the long run (5-10 years).
Inequality is a huge problem and is not solved by the solution given by Arthur Laffer.
That graph is wrong. Average person does not care about gross income. As long as net income is satisfying.
Adam Smith said do not tax the wealthy but give them medals and praise them when they do charity or employ more people. Rich people do not need money anymore the need respect and applause.
He was right saying that wealthy people do not need money but respect , but he did not foresee the internet and how shallow a great number of people are though.
Nowadays if a wealthy person shows his riches , cars, yachts on social media they are followed and praised my millions. Millionaires and billionaires do not need anymore to do charity to get the attention or to be loved in a way.
Shallow people follow and notice wrong celebrities. Kardashian Family , Dan Bilzerian, those rich Russian and Chinese and numerous talent-less unproductive people that literally do nothing followed by millions!! Those people contribute nearly to what Adam said they would.
They and the lack of rationality by humanity showed Adam Smith, one of the greatest mind of economy , how wrong he was in this point.
I know I should give arguments about the first points I made, but you have google. Read and study the history and the facts about them. I'm feeling lazy now.
This dude is completely for rich to control it all
There are two sides to every story.