- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,437
- Reaction score
- 1,950
- Location
- Confirmation Bias Land
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
And he explains it very succinctly in this video https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1395336673812258/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
And he explains it very succinctly in this video https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1395336673812258/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
Reich is a academia idiot.
And he explains it very succinctly in this video https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1395336673812258/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
Reich is a academia idiot.
Forbes WelcomeAnd I'm afraid that Reich's ignorance here is worse just than some political activist blowing off. He was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. We have a right to think, even should expect, that he knows this sort of stuff. Employment back then was more likely to lead to pay offs than today's labour market. Something like twice as likely in fact.
So, once again, sorry for that violation of Betteridge's Law. But at least we now have a good indication of why Robert Reich is employed as a Professor of public policy and not as one of economics. Spelling out that exact reason is left as an exercise for the reader.
I am neither con nor lib...but I do not recall hearing cons say the success secret includes low wages. Low minimum wage - maybe. But low wages? Why on Earth would that be good?
And Texas, Kansas and California? Come on now Robert.
Texas has the oil bust and who the hell wants to live in Kansas if they can live in California with it's amazing weather?
If California suddenly had the weather of Buffalo...California would no longer be booming.
Low regulations and low taxes FOR ALL CLASSES (not just the rich - I am TOTALLY against 'trickle down economics') means less tax dollars for government. And government is ALWAYS...not sometimes...ALWAYS FAR LESS EFFICIENT than the broad private sector.
So if someone's hard earned money goes to wasteful government or to far less wasteful free enterprise to solve a problem...then obviously the problem will get solved much better and much cheaper.
Now, looking after the those that cannot look after themselves is what government should do...you have to have a safety net for those people...and a good one (even though government will do it inefficiently).
But almost everything else - including infrastructure - should generally be done by the private sector.
And the more the private sector does what the government tries to do (and usually fails at), the less money is wasted and the less taxes people need to pay. Less waste and less taxes means more money spent on other things which create jobs and spur on the economy.
Sorry Robert. You seem a likeable sort and I believe you mean well. But big government is NEVER the answer to a healthier economy.
NEVER.
ANd once again...I am neither con nor lib.
He does look good on TV though. Tim Worstall did a pretty good take-down:
Is There Any Part Of Economics That Robert Reich Does Actually Understand?
Forbes Welcome
What was he trying to suggest? That such a scenario is what someone wants?
And he explains it very succinctly in this video https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1395336673812258/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
can you tell us why the communist academic feels low wages taxes and regulations amount to failure?
I had no idea that there were any communist academics left in the world. Were you talking about someone in particular?
Reich of course. Reich’s class-based rhetoric is really just Marxism wrapped in a modern veil. Marx’s theory was based on class conscious and the idea that people are motivated solely by the interests related to their respective class. When Reich advocates for higher rates of unionization, he uses the same Marxist logic in assuming the low and middle class should automatically buy into his thinking. Populist class struggle against capitalism is a concept brought up in virtually every piece of his writing. Just take a look at the phrasing from a Baltimore Sun editorial written back in December:
So the video confused you? Got it.
This video had nothing to do with labor unions. Try again.
He actually is a proper idiot. A Left wing academic ( redundant) who once suggested that the Obama administration put BP into receivership effectively Nationalizing it.
Lol ! Apparently the start of Reich's wet dream of a Socialist America was to follow the example of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela
He's a Left wing hack who exist in a ideological bububble and Im still trying to decide who's worse, Reich or Krugman.
Both are SO predictable, both totally disconnected from reality and both so wrong so much of the time
Reich argues against his own partisan constructs, like these supposed failed supply side economies that where's there low taxes and " few regulations " as a way to self affirm his own Left wing rhetoric.
People like him are more cartoon character than anything else.
And he explains it very succinctly in this video https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1395336673812258/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
There is no *need* to turn a profit in the private sector. Non-profits are part of our system too, liberals with bleeding hearts and great wisdom related to "how to do it better" can start one, any time, any where. That they routinely don't, leads me to believe they are not practicing what they preach?"Big government" doesn't solve economic problems, you're right. A government that can afford to - and is smart enough to - invest in the right projects DOES solve economic problems. Not that the private sector can't do the same. . . up to a point. Their need to turn a profit puts many limits on what they can do.
There is no *need* to turn a profit in the private sector. Non-profits are part of our system too, liberals with bleeding hearts and great wisdom related to "how to do it better" can start one, any time, any where. That they routinely don't, leads me to believe they are not practicing what they preach?
And then there is AMAZON.
Good point. It's often simply a matter of individual humans with vision and drive that make things happen in big, unconventional ways. Even a for-profit in this case, dominates and innovates while making little to no profit for a long time.
The fact that we see evidence that the alleged rules of the system are not actually operational (firms dont need to make money, public debt does not need to be paid back, profits are private loses are public, bankruptcy law is how we deal with bankrupt firms unless the DC ELITE get a wild hair then what ever they want goes so dont waste your(F) time telling me how important the rule of law is MKAY?(F)) is the biggest reason why the little people dont believe in this economy, and dont believe in the people who run it.
That plus these idiots are too dumb to care about jobs for Americans.
Oh, plus they lie constantly.
Empirical data does not automatically trump the laws of economics, he is negating economic laws here. California is booming because we have Silicon Valley, Hollywood, agriculture, and it's the biggest port cities in the western United States. If California lowered taxes and relinquished government spending then it would be even better. Also, California runs a massive defeceit so the people who necessarily benefit from the inflation created in california benefit from the inflation while the people in Kansas and Texas are stuck paying the higher cost of living.
California has always been a rich state there's no denying it but to attribute it to taxes is nonsensical. Notice how he picks California and not Michigan. Notice how he picks the whole state with a GDP the size of the 6 largest country but doesn't pick any of the actual cities in California. If you aggregate the United States we are the strongest economy in the world but if you introduce a microscope and look at cities in comparison there is empirical data that suggests cities under high tax and under heavy regulation TEND to be worse off. He's not even discussing economics he's not even an economist.
So how do you explain why Kansas isn't booming?
Because there's still a ton of federal government policies hindering its growth. It's not only state regulations that are causing economic capital consumption federal policies are in place as well my friend.