I was on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show recently, where I debated against Robert Reich. I made (what I hope are) good points about the Laffer Curve and the big-government policies of both Bush and Obama.
The bad news, as least from a personal perspective, is that the last half of the interview became a debate between Reich and Kudlow. I’ve been doing this long enough that I should have known to force myself back into the discussion. I did get in a final warning about the value-added tax, but this was not my best performance.
[…] that trip down Memory Lane because of a rather insipid tweet from my occasional sparringpartner, Robert Reich. He wants his followers to think that inflation is caused by “corporate […]
[…] took that trip down Memory Lane because of a rather insipid tweet from my occasional sparring partner, Robert Reich. He wants his followers to think that inflation is caused by “corporate […]
[…] But I also defend rich people because of my deep disdain for the policy agenda of empty-suit politicians and envy-wracked demagogues. […]
[…] But I also defend rich people because of my deep disdain for the policy agenda of empty-suit politicians and envy-wracked demagogues. […]
[…] to include in my 2011 column that discussed the “good rich” and the “bad rich.” When debating those who are motivated by class warfare, I’m defending the rich in the white zone, but it would be helpful to have a way of […]
[…] to include in my 2011 column that discussed the “good rich” and the “bad rich.” When debating those who are motivated by class warfare, I’m defending the rich in the white zone, but it would be helpful to have a way of […]
[…] liked to include in my 2011 column that discussed the “good rich” and the “bad rich.” When debating those who are motivated by class warfare, I’m defending the rich in the white zone, but it would be helpful to have a way of […]
[…] in my 2011 column that discussed the “good rich” and the “bad rich.” When debating those who are motivated by class warfare, I’m defending the rich in the white zone, but it would be helpful to have a way of […]
[…] I’m also unhappy with the division between IMFers and Keynesians, which is strange because it seems like half of my time is devoted to battling statists who argue for more government spending and the other half is consumed by fights against proponents of higher taxes. […]
[…] debated Robert Reich on issues such as tax havens, class warfare, and oil […]
Republican (aka stupid person) = “Let’s give all the wealth to the top 1% of society, and somehow the economy will continue to function.”
Science = “If 99% of America has no money to spend the economy will die.”
It is basic math: 1% of American’s are rich, and 99% of American’s are NOT rich. 1% is less than 99%. If 99% of Americans do not have any disposable income, or no income at all, 99% of the economy WILL FAIL because people who do not have any money to spend will not be able to spend any money. This is not hard for anyone with a functioning brain to understand.
If the economy fails the money/investments of rich people will become WORTHLESS because they only retain their value in a good economy.
You cannot have a successful economy or society based on only taking care of 1% of the population.
Don’t beat yourself up too badly, Dan. Debating a Global Socialist is like trying to counsel an alcoholic or drug addict. If you get bored and need some entertainment, I wrote “Fiat Addiction”, just for times like these.
I hope this cheers you up. We certainly won’t run out of things to write about.
Don’t beat yourself up too badly, Dan. Debating a Global Socialist is like trying to counsel an alcoholic or drug addict. If you get bored and need some entertainment, I wrote “Fiat Addiction”, just for times like these.
I hope this cheers you up. We certainly won’t run out of things to write about.
Daniel, not to worry, you did just fine. With respect to the Kudlow-Reich nonsensical banter, silence is golden.
What surprises me is that Robert the Reich and his ilk have not suggested a tax that is guaranteed to really soak the rich regardless of economic conditions: the wealth tax (AKA “intangible assets tax” or “personal property tax”). The nation of France has such a tax. Pennsylvania and Florida also had wealth taxes but got rid of them because people were not reporting their holdings of stocks, bonds, commodities, commercial paper, mortgages, CDs, money market funds, etc. But the feds would have the means to find out if people were cheating.
Another potential major source of revenue would be an assets tax on foundations and trusts, which were set up to circumvent the inheritance tax.
When a reporter asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he famously replied, “that’s where the money is.” Likewise, the assets of the rich and their estates are where the really big tax haul is.
From 1983 to 2008 the governments share of the GDP has grown from the 1951-80 average of 26.83% of the GDP to 33.38% of the GDP. A 6.5% shift in resources from the private sector to the public sector. Is it making any sense now?
In recent years this trend has accelerated dramatically changing from 32.56% in 2000 to 42.4% today. Is it any wonder we are experiencing inflation and slow growth?
Y = C + (1.05) I + (-) G + NX