Yep, only trade-offs. Of course, only the wealthy ends up in a net positive because they have the capital to make that trade off. Meanwhile the not so wealthy are stuck in a dead-end job or even a job at all. This contradicts Thomas' other bullshit claim about the conservative premise, of wanting to make poor people not poor, and stop producing more poor people, because the already poor people have children, and they are poor, and most likely, poorer. This cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is the free market dystopia, pundits like Thomas like to propose.
Phant0m I worked in a city attorney's office and was always bewildered by the lack of urgency present within the office and all of the other departments at city hall for that matter. There was no motivation; the bureaucrats got their paychecks no matter how inept they were. Most all were good people, but the government is nowhere near equipped enough to do what it seeks to.
Currently readin Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Explains exactly why governments don't work. No competition, you get paid no matter what, lazy people demanind handouts all the time, the list goes on and on. It fucking SUCKS! In order to get things done, you'd have to have many people with the same mindset as yours, and they are nowhere to be found in the public sector.
Yeah, the US government, which is obviously the best example of any government in the world. Other countries couldn't possibly have better solutions and systems in place, and thus the whole political ideology fails. Right?
+Reverend Veritas Well well! I never knew reptiles had "obsessive desires for power, wealth and dominion over others"! I think you'll find that we mammals invented those things all by ourselves. Hobbes put it best in the Leviathan: "In the first place I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well which he hath at present, without the acquisition of more."
+Reverend Veritas Why single out the reptile stage? All animals have such "evolutionary baggage," including the amphibians before them and the fish still further back in time. It is, in any case, impossible to imagine a life form that did not possess "instincts founded on self-preservation," nor would such a hypothetical being last very long. One senses that Sagan and others have selected the term "reptilian" simply because it sounds fiercer and more dramatic. The passage by Hobbes that I quoted elegantly sums up the reasons for human behaviour in such scenarios, and there really is no necessity to grope tens of millions of years backwards in time to find the behavioural causes.
+Reverend Veritas Couldn't one argue that Trump is "unabashedly honest?" I think George Carlin put it best when he said (& I'm paraphrasing here) we have no rights! The system is rigged & is setup to give the average person the "illusion" that they have freedom of choice.....it's sure a nice fantasy, though! (:
come here in US where on average 45000 people die each year for lack of healthcare you know being poor . do you want that in your country? thats what conservatives did to this country btw google it if you dont believe me.
atheistsimplicity Aye, lets give health care to everyone... Any good ideas on who will take care of the bills? I am just a carpenter. If I need a 500 000 dollar surgery to survive, what right do I have to force more productive individuals than me to pay for it? I have noting against people advocating welfare, only against welfare itself; socialists who advocate it... they all mean well, but they create something destructive. Welfare is a ponzy-scheme; There will always be more money going out than there is coming in.
atheistsimplicity You're kidding right? That's what conservatives did? The basic definition of a conservative is someone who does not support change unless it is a complete social and economic shift forcing said change. Conservatives don't actually "do" anything per se. Constitutionally this is not supported and in any constitutional republic the government is supposed to stay out of the private sectors such as health and other industries overall. If the person can't afford it, why should I have to pay it? I certainly don't want to burden someone else for my costs. So the solution to that is to get educated, get a job that pays better, and be able to afford it. That's what the U.S. and conservatives are about. Make your own life, it's how its supposed to be, and the middle and working classes have operated (successfully I might add) since the 1800's. Education is insanely wide spread and available so don't tell me you can't. You can. Education is the key to success and the key to a better society overall. So moral of the story. Wanna afford health care? get educated. that easy
Liberal Politician: "We must do something to help those people-- they're suffering. We have to act now. We've put it off too long." Conservative Politician: "What have those people done to help themselves? Will your idea work? Can we fund it? Let's take this slowly."
Thomas Sowell is one of our top economists. He is well known among educated and well read people. Most of the comments critical of him show an outstanding level of ignorance. Buy one of his books and read it! You will not regret becoming more intelligent.
@@kyleebrahim8061 He's wrong on welfare and he is wrong about the people who receive welfare. He lies about the people who get it, in saying that gov runs their lives. He is wrong on free market solutions. The Free market doesn't even exist. Big Business is a big reason for global poverty, not only the govs. Sowell and Friedman only like to blame the gov.
@@SandbagBouldering I've spoken to a few black people and tried the Sowell name drop and... nothing. Crickets. Really, they've never heard of the guy because he doesn't play ball or rap. It's that sad here. But, then they wonder why nothing ever improves in the black community (whatever that means)….
@The Life Analyst Exactly! Marxist and leftist are racist in their actions. He changed after working for the government and became an individualist, which isn't into group identity so no longer racist. Many black people are racist because they believe they've been victimized. Once you become an individual, it's about what you can do for yourself to improve. Watch the video and listen to him.
The 3 question that Thomas Sowell feels would destroy most of the arguments of "The Left". 1.Compared to what? 2.At what cost? 3.What hard evidence do you have?
+Mullerornis Oh please progressives and conservatives both have ridiculously stupid ideas and believes. The fact that you don't get it proves how stupid or young you are. PS: "liberals" like you don't even fucking know what being liberal means. You guys are literally against the definition of liberalism.
+Mullerornis Are you "latino" ? If you are sure sounds like you hate it. Turn around and go back south if living here does not give you enough opportunity. There are plenty of thriving, socialistic, dependent, poor latin countries to pick from! Quit sponging out of the conservative cash register, and do something for yourself. Either that or eat a bullit dipshit!
The anointed are those that wish to force their vision of the world on everyone, who wish to control the lives of everyone. They believe they know what is right and just and also that the ends justifies the means. Which is why they are happy to violate others rights and freedoms in order to bring about their version of utopia. Sowell never does this. Has never done this. He could’ve run for office but never did. He’s a philosopher who never references himself in his books. Never gives his opinion. His work is very much just a history of economics and politics. I’ve read half a dozen of his books and the phrases “i think” or “what we should do” never once appears. He’s sort of a libertarian and they believe that they dont have the right to force their vision of the world on anyone. If they have a vision at all it is a tragic one. That the world is a tragic place and always will be and Any attempt to change that will just result in unnecessary human suffering. Which he proves unequivocally in his book the vision of the anointed. One of his famous quotes is “there are rarely solutions, only trade offs”
I have to get that book. I knew it. I'm not the delusional one. I can relate to your comment it makes sense. Thank you for that. Question is, now that we're aware of this what could be done so that you can maneuver around them?
@@martinesejour3361 Shrink the size and power of the federal govt so that the anointed can’t alter life for everyone in the country on a whim. The solution is federalism where you can move to Texas or Florida when California becomes a dump and be governed by people more aligned with your values. The solution is recognizing that we need to stop trying to control the lives of others. The solution is freedom. But the anointed don’t value freedom. Start by being deeply suspicious of anyone, especially people who pay no price for being wrong, claiming to have a solution to a problem. We’ve seen this with covid where the anointed have done a lot of harm in their attempts to solve a problem.
This video basically confirmed to me that in my thinking I am 'pretty much' conservative, esp the description Thomas Sowell does at the end. Strangely, I spent most of my life having a liberal mindset, but in the last 4 years after questioning practically all of my beliefs, I now find myself firmly planted here, I could have never known this would happen, but listening to this is like coming home. Lately, because of all the stuff going on in the states around the election and the protests, I have really been questioning whether I am an evil person because of the value system I've constructed by digging inside; How Ironic, years ago, I used to think conservatives were Evil, and now I seem to identify with many conservative ideas, I'm questioning whether 'I' am evil or not, how ironic. I guess the years of conditioning I had goes very deep.
Yeah, it's hard not to become conservative as you get older. You realize more and more that the government can't and shouldn't be the answer for all of life's problems, and you want more and more to live your life how you want, with little to no interference form controlling forces.
Same boat. Used to be liberal in my thinking. Hell, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter...at first. Then I wanted a 3rd party to win. Libertarian or Green, I didn't care. After the election was over. And the riots... This current climate we have now.. I can honestly say that I can consider myself conservative and or somewhat libertarian now. And like you, I thought conservatives were the scum of the earth. I made fun of them.. all that. Life sure does have a funny irony.
JazzPianoObsessed You were always conservative. The problem was you were taught/ told that you were democrat, and possibly taught that conservatives are evil. Democrats are the ones truly evil and villianize us on the right as racist, sexist, everything under the sun. Step back and examine what’s going on and what both sides stand for. The left represents babylon, the right represents God. Amen 💯
I am a Mexican immigrant--came to the US when I was 16--and Dr Sowell helped change and shape my political and sociological ideas. God bless you Dr Sowell.
He's not an animal. Just because you agree with what he is saying doesn't make him impressive. He's a person just like us, capable of forming his own opinions without being patronized.
basically: give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, and you helped feed him for a lifetime... somewhere along the line, we as a society, forgot about this.
Society hasn't forgotten it. The guy who sells fish for a living has no interest in you being able to catch your own, so he pays the police to keep you off the boat. It's the fisherman in who's interest it is to _"conserve"_ this condition. It doesn't matter how high conservatism claims to raise all boats. The only _"choice"_ you get is who to buy from.
OR the fisherman passes out free samples of his wares keeping the popuation barely sated through allocation of what he deems appropriate while stockpiling the best for himself. The population lap up what he provides thiking the fisherman is generous but the dishing out of tiny portions for freee creates a dependance the population find it hard to break free from.
"The government was nowhere close to being capable of doing what people on the left wanted the government to do and we'd be lucky if they didn't make things worse." Every time I hear this man talk, I am totally impressed by the insight and clarity with which he speaks.
Tell that to the nordic model in the whole western region of Scandenvian Europe where it's objectively the best place to live in the entire world in no small part due to government intervention.
@@734ch3r He is with the conservatives. I used to think Thomas Sowell was more neutral, a scientist who valued the data more than political gesturing, but now he has clearly shifted towards taking a side in the convervative vs. liberal drama which dominates the American media. I guess he needs to make money too. It doesn't pay to be a moderate and see value in both sides of the debate.
The "self anointed" is a very good way to describe these self righteous bastards. They don't live with the "under class" don't understand their problems. They stand around pontificating about everyone and everyting everyone while at their "wine and cheese parties" then drive home in a vehicle worth more than a working class persons mortgage.
This is actually a great point that a lot of people don't seem to see haha. A lot of 'liberals' here in SF are just guilty white people. They live in a home with a father and mother and kids who go to school, work, and live a libertarian, borderline conservative upper middle-class or practically upper-class lifestyle and then vote liberal??? They wouldn't for a moment trade places with someone in poverty. Chances are that person is mowing their lawn xD. Left-wing politics promote brainwashing and this weird collective mindset that just doesn't translate into reality.
Many, many thanks to all of you. I was completely unaware of the existence of these figures, with the exception of Thomas Sowell. If it weren't for sharing their names and me researching one by one... I would have less intellectual resources to reference and less knowledge before your comments. Thank you for the golden gems! I will enjoy these golden treasures to the fullest. 🥰
+HouseholdDog Check out Milton Friedman, John Stossel, Dave Smith, and Larken Rose. Also be sure to see my playlists. Lot of good content collected there.
Have read through several threads here; mostly arguments between liberals and conservatives. I find them interesting because I've been both a liberal and a conservative in my lifetime. When I was young, and hadn't really experienced much of life yet, I was very liberal. Brought up in an FDR democrat family. Now, after 45 years of working for a living, dealing in the inner city with many of my stores and watching the steady deterioration of the people there despite all the social programs, I've become a conservative. Not to be confused with republican; I agree with conservative tenets but many republican positions and tactics drive me crazy. But I would challenge anyone espousing their liberal beliefs to work your butt off for a few decades and watch as others who have never worked in their lives spend your tax money. It's easy to spout liberal credos when you're not really in touch with the real world. Get down there and see your tax dollars at work, because in may ways that's the only work that's being done down there.
+buckfan1969 I think that all your anecdotal story tells us is that there's some truth to the Horseshoe Theory of Politics. In the end the far right and the far left want to achieve the same goals, they just have different reasons to turn us into an autocratic state.
I sincerely like how you differentiated between conservative and republican. Many - if not most - conservatives are in that boat. Yet, when it comes time to vote, a conservative most likely has to vote Republican because liberalism (Democrat) is death. Thanks for your post.
@LEO2001 You don't know anything about me, but yes, I do expect everyone to earn a living unless they're disabled. If that makes me a mean old man so be it.
@LEO2001 The first rule of economics is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for it. We should be focusing on why medical costs escalate at 4 times the inflation rate year after year instead of just throwing MORE money at it. We have a bad habit in this country of treating symptoms of problems rather than drilling down to the root causes. Health care wasn't an issue until companies started offering medical benefits after WWII due to the wage and price controls, since they couldn't offer higher wages. Once insurance was part of the equation, health care providers knew the patients wouldn't care what they charged, because the insurance company was paying for it. The insurance company didn't really care, because they just kept raising their premiums. And eventually it got so expensive that people HAD to have insurance. Do you really think it will get better if we take a horrible business model like that and expand it more? Continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. Or stupidity.
@LEO2001 Ran a Target Store in Detroit in the late 80's/early 90's, and we'd see the Canadians every weekend. Prices were 40-50% higher across the Detroit River, so they'd come over wearing their grungiest old clothes, buy stuff they could wear on their person; clothes, jewelry, etc., and put it on in the car in the parking lot, leaving the old clothes behind. Why? So they wouldn't have to pay the duty. I asked why they went through all that trouble, and they told me the prices over there were ridiculous. I remember they guy then saying, "But we've got free healthcare". I asked him; how about those people inland who can't come to a store in Detroit or Duluth and get stuff and normal prices? He shrugged. And they come to America for procedures, because the waiting list in Canada is 2-3 years for just about anything. So that's the rest of the story. My point still stands; it's time to fix the source of the problem instead of just throwing more money at the problems. We've been doing that since the 30's and it has been an abject failure. When will we ever learn?
Very few people have the capacity to do a paradigm shift and completely change their philosophy. I've always liked Thomas Sowell. His answers are so well thought out.
There is no 'difference' because they measure different things. Liberals think for themselves; ideologues demand to be told what to think. Conservatives keep things the same unless they are broke; radicals change things just to change things.
Fantastic explanation of the differences between parties. I am very proud to be a young conservative, despite the feminine liberalized generation I am apart of. These "appointed" utopianists unfortunately have slithered their ways into our universities, our media, and a huge portion of the government. I literally had to fake liberalism to pass some of my courses at a Cal-State University, this of course made me even more conservative. Another common characteristic I have noticed in the modern liberal is they have no respect nor understanding of our history and the foundation of this country, which is in itself one of the greatest stories of a birth of a nation. Our founders were far more educated and qualified than what we are stuck with today. The basic truths and laws of nature such as survival of the fittest does not reside in their brains. Pitifully enough, they actually think some type of utopia is possible where there is no war,everyone is politically correct, truth is silenced, we all drive Toyota prius's and bake vegan cookies singing around a camp fire passing legalized marijuana.
For Sowell to explain free-market, conservative ideals to a liberal is equivalent to a physicist explaining quantum mechanics to an ant. No ability to comprehend...whatsoever.
Sowell said that explaining how prices and free market works to a liberal is like explaining how babies are made to a 6 year old. Which incidentally, liberals are trying to do in public school.
OMG! After 24 years working for DoD, here's exactly my thoughts about it. Sowell is absolutely correct! For all the hoopla about "running it like a business", there was really no incentive to do that. There were problems that had existed for decades, everyone complained about it, but God help anyone who tried to fix it. You always ran into exactly the same reasoning that made the problem appear to be the best answer to a bureaucratic jumble, when it obviously wasn't. Gov't doesn't solve problems. It institutionalizes them!
That sounds like a very good way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberal premise tends to be that human nature is a blank slate, so it's the institutions that must be wrong. If we change the institutions in the right way, everyone will be happy. The conservative premise is that humans are born flawed as individuals. Flawed people build flawed institutions. There are no solutions, only trade offs. The goal is not to solve every problem, but to get the best tradeoff you can get. I can see pessimism in the conservative view that, at times, can hold society back from needed progress. However, I can also see the arrogance of liberalism in thinking that it knows enough to truly solve society's problems without making things worse.
Have a look at the playlists I suggested, or at least look up "non-aggression principle". "Multiculturalism" & "equality" are not principles. They are concepts (ambiguous ones, at that). They do not dictate a course of action. Yes, the spectrum of political ideologies encapsulates a wide range of essentially arbitrary edicts. But the only thing that matters, and the only thing that truly divides the philosophies is "Do you believe it is moral and ethical to initiate violence against others?"
There is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives, both "sides" are of the same coin. It's time we looked at different options like the people run the government rather than choosing a leader to herd sheep.
Liberal solution = treat the symptom. Food for the hungry. Welfare for the poor. Unemployment for those out of work. Conservative solution = treat the illness. Improve the economy to reduce poverty. From there everything else will take care of itself.
Conservatives believe in "the individual". I didn't say Republicans - big difference. Liberals believe in "the system". Translation: One side believes "I can do this", while the other believes "they should do this". The real impasse is in the difference between "I" and "they". "I" is me - period. I'm responsible. "They" is a collective. No individual responsibility. At the end of the day, most of the societal ills would be eliminated, overnight, if every able-bodied person simply took care of the responsibilities for the face or legs that they shave each day. If you are able, and don't.... then who should? If you are able, and do, then why should you be punished for those who don't?
Right on, MrBud. Liberals (along with phony republicans) want the government to do it for them in the likes of smoking bans, restricting the size of sodas, raising their minimum wage, what light bulbs can be manufactured etc. The two most despised words by liberal's are 'personal responsibility'. "Never do for myself what the government can do for me". The exact opposite of what JFK, a democrat, believed in. This isn't the party of JFK, HHH, or H Truman anymore. Liberals in power are very dangerous as they exploit easy targets such as the poor. It is in liberals' best interests to keep enough people poor and promise them benefits and gifts to ensure their continued allegiance. Their ultimate goal is to get the poorest 47% (who don't pay any income tax) to over 50%. Wake up, America.
66limelight You do realize part of the reason why 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes is because of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (which eliminated the income tax for low-income people) along with their Earned Income Tax Credit program? And they still pay other taxes such as payroll taxes, sales taxes, and so forth.
What nonsense. Both liberalism and conservatism in the US encompass severe restrictions on personal freedoms. Conservatives want to impose their moral and religious views on the rest of society, while minimizing their own obligations to the rest of society. They want everyone else to serve their view of the world and their personal needs and desires while giving nothing back. Individual conservatives tend to believe that minority rights should be protected when they're a member of the minority in question (for example, with religious congregations) but when other minority rights are at risk they cite "majority rules". American conservatives are short-sighted, self-interested assholes. Liberals are about conforming to purity of process over results. They relate what they perceive to be social ills to problems with unjust process instead of pursuing practical measures to get practical results. Rather than looking at what kinds of actions produce beneficial outcomes, they defer to procedures that they consider "moral" or "just" based on ideological bullshit. They confuse cowardice with procedural correctness which is their biggest political flaw. Neither American Liberals nor American Conservatives give a flying fuck about real world facts or actual outcomes. Getting results in the real world processes rarely conform with simplistic ideology.
mistajames3213 "Conservatives want to impose their moral and religious views on the rest of society" I learned the other day that conservatives are supposed to be socially liberal in practise, even if their personal values differ. Much like Libertarians. They can differ in personal values, but in practise, they are strictly against legislating on personal values.
People should be clear about how they are using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" They are not, in my mind, equivalent to Democrat and Republican. GW Bush, for instance, can't be described as a conservative in the traditional sense, despite being a Republican.
pmcaninch42 Bush would be considered a New-Liberal according to modern definitions. I wouldn't base my label solely on economics btw. Take a look, though. Prove me wrong.
pmcaninch42 -- Karl Rove organized the single largest entitlement legislation since SS from FDR - Medicare Part D - so W could get reelected. And you're calling W conservative - LOL...
pmcaninch42 "And i assume you think Obama's a communist as well? Even though all he's done is cut taxes and spending, deregulate corporations, and committed war crimes? From the sound of that he should be your favorite President ever, even Bush didn't cut spending." ???? What does that have to do with my Karl Rove comment???
pmcaninch42 you just reiterated my point - read what I wrote again. Karl Rove is not a conservative, he is a charlatan in professing to be conservative...
Joe Ronnie Joe, the Democrats in CONGRESS are richer. In the free market REPUBLICANS tend to have higher incomes,contrary to the liberal media assertions.It's called "work" for you liberals who don't understand what that really is.
ie 99% of people who click on this video are probably expecting some quippy little 1 liner, or were lookin for 1 simplistic single reason attributing everything to 1 narrow minded aspect
I read Sowell's book 'A Conflict of Visions' many years ago. The conclusion I remember taking away were 1) Liberals believe if you get smart enough people in powerful enough institutions, all problems can be fixed and man can be perfected; 2) Conservatives believe man is flawed, and the best way to make things better is to have voluntary exchanges and to diffuse power Sowell is an American treasure and he is one of the very few public figures I would like to meet in person.
I don't like things being this biased. I think I'm just feeling dirty because I'm watching a Fox News clip though. I still respectfully disagree with Sowell though. He mostly talks about the extremists I think. Either way, I believe liberals and conservatives can be scummy and illogical in their own right. Every group can. Of course I don't think Sowell is. I just started watching his stuff and I love the guy. I just wish he wasn't so uptight about non-conservative folk. This conservative/liberal bickering is stupid.
+Lindi Rufus You seem to presume that the political center is where the truth must lie. It could be that one side--even the extreme of one side--is where the truth in fact lies.
Benjamin Meltzer Meh, I personally have both conservative and liberal views, but at the same time I don't get involved in politics. I just watch Sowell's videos to stimulate my brain. You could be right, but I keep my mind open to a bunch of things. I like the idea of the political center having the most truth though.
If the "pay" is not enough to disqualify you for welfare, it's too low. Corporations moving manufacturing out of the country, not paying taxes (or a low rate), taking taxpayers subsidies...this is the free market? I'm no liberal, I'm just saying these talking points defy facts and logic.
It's not just manufacturing. Plenty of non-manufacturing corporations are moving their HEADQUARTERS to Ireland, etc. How do you feel about the U.S. having the highest corporate income tax rates in the OECD? Do you think that is big part of the problem?
testodude Highest on paper. Loopholes and subsidies cut that on paper rate substantially. On paper, I pay nearly 50%. In reality, it's less than 20%. Corporations do much better. In my opinion, if your corporation is not providing jobs here in America, those loopholes and subsidies are closed to you. Move it and lose it. Simple give and take.
Brimar7 Accounting rules in the US do make a difference, as you imply, but US is still the highest, I believe, although a few others, like New Zealand are very high.
testodude I think the biggest issue for me is people demonizing our poorest citizens, while not acknowledging the fact that we, as taxpayers, pay far more in corporate "welfare". Oil corporations, for example, are highly profitable. Why do they qualify for subsidies? To me, that's a much more valid discussion that feeding the poor in today's economy. I acknowledge there's fraud. There will be when money is involved. The bigger fraud is handing billions to corporations that make billions. If we're going to give tax dollars away, I'd much rather use that money to at least attempt to better the lowest among us. Stop the unnecessary subsidies. Limit the current welfare system and as a taxpayer, I'd be somewhat satisfied.
I am with you. I don't demonize corporations that operate within the law, as all the stakeholders are PEOPLE under the covers. For example, Ford employees roughly 200,000 people, millions of shareholders and customers. However, they do have way too much influence over legislators. I think the corporate tax rate should be pealed back a little-- and subsidies and tax cheats have to GO. Peace, my friend.
"You want to keep them from being poor!". How is that working out. Walmart employees need to be on food stamps because of corporate greed. And who do you think pays for that, the working poor people, Thanks to conservative tax breaks for the rich. Give me a break, with this conservative Dreck.
The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Conservatives base their ideas off of systems we know that work. Liberals... not so much.
Answer to his three questions that 'destroy' liberals re minimum wage: 1) Compared to what: The minimum wage in the rest of the developed world. 2) At what cost: So little it has no impact on employment. 3) Hard evidence: Proven around the world. Economic stats of other countries.
3. There is no issue small enough that is discussed that has no impact on employment. 2. Economic stats of other countries? What other country has a overall higher standard of living than the United States. 1. Just because the rest of the world has a minimum wage does not obligate the U.S. to have one also. If anything we should abolish the minimum wage to demonstrate to other countries how the minimum wage hurts employment. Look I would agree with raising the minimum wage if the facts showed that it didn't harm people.
Dillon Thompson 1) Its not about obligation, its about getting the best result. If you check out a list of minimum wages highest to lowest, you'll see the is no correlation with unemployment at all. The industries affected like retail just pass the cost on. You wont get more sales staff if minimum wage is lower, just prices that are a few cents lower to the buyer. Nearly all minimum wage jobs are in services, not manufacturing. 2) Higher standard of living than the US? Many, but how do you measure it? Does needing a security guard in front of your condo count as lower stand of living? It does for me. So does getting harassed for change at the train station. Do you really want to create a feudal type society where 30% live wealthy enclosed in electric fenced complexes to keep the plebs out and 70% live poor and serve the 30%? That's where unregulated capitalism leads. 3) I was referring to minimum wage specifically.
Exactly how many people do you employ? I currently have 120 people working for me and any increase in the minimum wage WILL impact my decisions for expanding my business as much as the ACA has impacted some of my employees' working hours. Try running your own business and then come back and tell us how things work in the real world instead of in your fevered imagination.
TanzanianRoots Lowest taxes? What a joke.Also the idea that you should shut up because the government is only stealing a smaller amount of your money than other governments is a red herring.
Sowell creates a straw man of Rousseau and then applies it the contemporary liberal position. Rosseau did not base his criticism of social ills solely on the argument that our institutions are wrong. Although he did criticize institutions, Rousseau's concept of moral freedom (today usually referred to as positive freedom or civil rights), he understood was only enabled through the institution of government. Sowell leaves out that, like conservatives, Rousseau also believed in flawed human nature. Flawed human nature leads to flawed institutions, it follows. The nuance in Rousseau's position is empirical. He studied other, more "primitive" cultures and saw that their institutions were not focused on private wealth and negative freedom (freedom from, which is at the core of individualism). It's not that these other cultures did not have their own institutions, per se, but that their more egalitarian society did not produce inequality so rampant in ours. He understood the hypocrisy of European conquistadors condescending to so-called primitives. Sowell's view of conservatism: "There are no solutions there are only trade offs. Whatever you do to deal with one of man's flaws creates another problem. You try to get the best trade off you can get. That's all you can hope for." It is a straw man to say that the Left is only about ensuring equal outcome. This is the most disingenuous of politically motivated spins. Anyway, this is a preposterous argument because considering outcomes (or possible outcomes) is utilitarianism in a nutshell and is always part of any cost-benefit analysis whether one is a strict utilitarian or not, and regardless of where one is in the political spectrum. Saying "you try to get the best trade off you can get" is not a position unique to conservatives and it is disingenuous for Sowell to spin it that way. That is exactly what everyone does. The implication here is that the Left should not push things to far, except things as they are, as the best they can be. This is laughable. It is the classic conservatism: don't try to change things, you'll only upset the status quo. The Left is about recognizing negative externalities and addressing them. You would think that the Right, with their focus on negative rights, would appreciate the Left's concern for negative exernalities as they are an infringement on the sovereign person. Even Rothbard understood this. But in today's climate of politicizing facts, it is an inconvenient truth to acknowledge for the likes of the partisan Sowell. In the case of Walmart raising their wages, I'll accept Sowell's challenge and answer the 3 questions that are supposed to stump me. Compared to what? - Compared to a "living wage" for example. Does Walmart or any company have a right to pay subsistence wages just because the workers are "weak agents" and not in a position to get a living wage. Why should I as a tax payer have to subsidize Walmart's employees standard of living by paying for their food stamps because Walmart is in a position to exploit the situation. We know that Walmart can afford a higher wage. Look at their profits. Their competitor Costco does and they do not have the level of profits that Walmart does. At what cost? - The cost may result in less than 25 cents per check out transaction if the cost is passed on to customers without laying anyone off. Then there is the benefit to the economy from the demand that more money in the hands of low wage employees creates. There is also the general social benefit of everything that comes from reducing poverty, stronger families, communities, higher self esteem, opportunity, better health, etc etc. That is the "cost" Mr Sowell. What hard evidence do you have? There are plenty of studies that show an aggregate advantage to the economy by raising the minimum wage. Google it. Is it a consensus? No. We're not simply talking science here, we're talking values as well. There is a petition in circulation that has over 600 signatures from prominent US economists. Sure, this issue might not have the 97% virtual consensus of the climate change issue, but Sowell probably denies that too. So, is evidence really the issue?
If you don't believe that a big chunk of leftists in the West believe in low/no compromise solutions, you must be discussing these matters on a different internet than the one I've been on. There are millions of very loud and opinionated individuals out there who would honestly see no possible negative outcome to forcefully taking resources from everyone with" too much" and redistributing equally to everyone in the world, and then offering the same wages going forward to all professions, regardless of qualifications. There are millions upon millions of people on the left who would have no clue what could possibly go wrong there. That is the reason why these kinds of discussions can never go forward. The arguments that sophisticated economists get wrapped up in don't even apply here. The level of discourse way down here in the land of the commoners is filled to the brim with crap. misinformation. and a distinct lack of real world experience. The OWS mentality has completely taken over the millennial generation, and they're next at bat to lead our countries into the future. Hopefully they'll grow up before it's their turn.
"There are millions of very loud and opinionated individuals out there who would honestly see no possible negative outcome to forcefully taking resources from everyone with" too much" and redistributing equally to everyone in the world" That's because they understand something you don't. They understand that societies have goals that go beyond any individual goals. The genius of successful human society is getting the balance between individual (private) and collective (public) rights worked out. It's the way humans lived through most of our history. It's only relatively recently in human history that we created a new way to distribute resources through capitalism. But capitalism is a redistribution of resources as well. As Proudhon famously said, "property is theft". Even Stefan Molyneux -- whom I normally disagree with -- admits that tracing back most property to its original acquisition results in a moral problem. Capitalism is simply a reorganization of feudalism and it favors the wealthy. If you happen to be borne of the golden vagina, you're fine. If not, you must rely on those with money to survive. Everyone but libertarians seems to get that this is inherently unfair, which is why we regulate capitalism. The most successful societies on the planet -- Western European -- (in terms of happiness and standard of living metrics) redistribute wealth through taxation more than the US. So, if you're an apologist for capitalism, you're in the right place. The US govt is the most libertarian in the world. "offering the same wages going forward to all professions, regardless of qualifications." I've never heard this promoted by anyone. This is the typical ignorant fear that reactionaries have to the word egalitarianism because they don't know what it means, ascribe to it your description, but can't even be bothered to google it, apparently. "There are millions upon millions of people on the left who would have no clue what could possibly go wrong there." People are naive on both sides. But we know what works, we know what makes for a decent society and what doesn't. Totalitarianism doesn't work -- whether it's socialist or fascist brand. Anarchism is a pipe dream -- left or right. But laissez faire also does not work. People revolted against it and rightly so. "The level of discourse way down here in the land of the commoners is filled to the brim with crap. misinformation. and a distinct lack of real world experience." Commoners? That shows where you're coming from. Why are you stooping to educate the commoners? Shouldn't you be publishing in the Heritage Foundation or The National Review? Your comments, to me, are as ignorant as any. Not just ignorant but dangerous. "The OWS mentality has completely taken over the millennial generation, and they're next at bat to lead our countries into the future. Hopefully they'll grow up before it's their turn." People may be ignorant about economics but they understand basic fair play and that is what they're reacting against. You're a garden variety reactionary. If people were as OWS as you claim, taxes would be what they were in the FDR Truman and Eisenhower administrations. You reactionaries are lucky that so many people are ignorant. If they weren't, if they really understood how they're being exploited, they'd tear down your casino society.
canteluna If the United States government is the most libertarian in the world, then the world certainly isn't very libertarian at this point, because I see in the United States multi-billion dollar "stimulus" packages and bailouts of failed businesses, progressive income taxes, inheritance taxes, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, social security, nationalized healthcare, warrantless wiretapping, spying, and torture, gay marriage and marijuana possession still being illegal in most states, a noose tightening strongly around the Second Amendment, countless abrogations of the First Amendment to the point where children can't even where an American flag shirt to public schools without being castigated.
SamSederIsAnIdiot "If the United States government is the most libertarian in the world, then the world certainly isn't very libertarian at this point" I meant it is the most libertarian of the 1st world countries. There are a few 3rd world countries that have no government to speak of and many more that have weak government and they aren't capitalist bastions. Why? Because it isn't a lack of government that allows a market to thrive, it's institutions (one of which being government) and culture. (The reason you can't simply "impose" capitalism onto countries like Somalia or East Congo, for example, is because their cultures don't have the kind of institutions that allow capitalism to thrive. They are still basically feudal and patrilineal societies.) And, no, the world isn't very libertarian because societies aren't created by idiot-know-it-alls on youtube. Societies are complex and cultural norms change fairly slowly. "progressive income taxes, inheritance taxes, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, social security, nationalized healthcare" These were all instrumental in creating the once largest middle class in the world. Now that we can no longer make that boast, the countries that can, all have the things you mentioned. People (except some of the wealthy and the ideologically ignorant, want these things because they understand that it takes positive rights to create opportunity for all, not simply a society of inherited wealth. Why do you think the progressive politics caught on in this country and in others. And look at the countries that don't have progressive policy, they are not places you libertarians -- or anyone else -- would choose to live, especially if you're not born wealthy). "warrantless wiretapping, spying, and torture" These things are a result of govt unaccountable to "the people" (and to it's own constitution). The better question is why that is the case when we allegedly have a constitutional democratic republic. Answer is somewhat complex but mostly because of the lack of democratic institutions, mostly the conservative family and most work places where people are conditioned to "know their place" and to not question authority. Governments get away with a lot because they are mostly beholden to special interests, not to "the people" and then the people's apathy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. "gay marriage and marijuana possession still being illegal in most states" Social issues are complex and not as simple as libertarians would like to believe. You people seem to think that by not having a government responsible for creating laws (usually the laws that people lobby for) that people just accept any behavior that doesn't affect them personally. And that may be true to some extent, but where you're wrong is in the concept of victimless crime. Because people are social, we are all effected by the behavior of others. Take drunk driving as an example. The harsh laws against drunk driving have significantly reduced the deaths of accidental death due to drunk drivers. In a libertarian society, anyone could drive as drunk as they like and then face the consequences when they injure or kill someone. But then it is too late, of course. What does the family of a victim care that the drunk driver that killed their loved one goes to jail or pays compensation? Most people don't want their kids doing drugs (except now maybe for marijuana) and they realize that having drugs available in the culture is a potential harm to their children and so they don't want the drugs in their communities. The problem with that view is that the drugs are already available and making them "legal" won't change their availability much. As for gay marriage, the argument against it isn't rational. It's simply an inherited phobia, a cultural norm that has been changing due to several factors, one of which being the constitutionality of gay rights. "children can't even where an American flag shirt to public schools without being castigated" Another social norm issue mostly. Respect for sacred symbols is an ancient social norm and their guardians get offended when others disrespect them. People want to use the flag in a disrespectful way to make a political point. If it weren't disrespectful they wouldn't bother. The point of these last two issues is one of rights. Libertarians mistakenly believe that negative rights are a default position, they're not. Rights must be protected by an authority granted by "the people" (such as govt) or they aren't rights. In a libertarian society, Blacks in the 1850s may have had no legal barrier to socialize with Whites but that isn't the point. In an anarchist society, there are no rights, there are only private contracts. And, more importantly, what fills the vacuum of govt are other institutions, namely the family and businesses. Prior to the state (first created by China over 2000 years ago) societies were patrilineal (i.e. tribal) and that is how people would organize again in the absence of the state (we know that from examples where the state collapses or becomes very weak). There would be no rule OF law (as opposed to rule BY law) or accountability of institutions except to those who endow them. All governments are corrupt to some extent for the same reason that individuals are corrupt. But the extent is important. Denmark is not North Korea. Both have governments and so what is the difference between them? One boasts the happiest people on the planet and the other is a living nightmare for most of the people. The important question is, are the social institutions responsive to people's needs? Do people trust the institutions? Is authority accountable? Are the rules and laws the same for everyone? Libertarians need to ask themselves if they really want to live in a society without rule of law or accountable powers. Government is not something I am happy with any more than you are. The difference between us is that I see it as inevitable and therefore try to make it as responsive to "the people" as possible. The absence of government simply means that powerful institutions are not accountable to "the people". If that's your preference then I would question your values and goals. I didn't comment on min wage. People who don't believe in min wage are ideologues and don't mind "punching down" to the most vulnerable in society. I've had a lot to say on it. You can find my comments elsewhere. Check out the Intelligence Squared debate and listen to Jared Bernstein make mincemeat of his libertarian opponents on this subject. And if you think Sam Seder is an idiot why not debate him? Tell him where he's wrong. He loves to take calls from libertarians.
canteluna A pretty rambling response to a statement you yourself conceded was wrong. I see no reason to respond to everything in this post when it's going so far off topic.
+Greg Ramirez Sorry for the late response, but interesting article.....the only point I would argue against is: who is better qualified to be president? Sure, if this was an election based soley on someone's resume, Trump might just be where Bush is now - & that place is "absolutely nowhere!" But, people are just sick in tired of the same 'ol song-and-dance in Washington. Will Trump, if elected, act any different than a Cruz or Bush would? I think that's a bet Americans (Republicans) are willing to take.
+Google spies on you Trump isn't qualified to run for the highest position for one of the world's most powerful nations because he has demonstrated poor judgement (in speech and in action) to fear mongering to dangerous rhetoric, empty promises and blatant hypocrisy. He says he wants to make America strong again by bringing in and providing jobs to Americans, yet he outsources jobs to China, Mexico and Bangladesh to make his clothes. Actions speak louder than words. Is any candidate perfect? Hell no. It's politics so there is so much shit on all sides. These are my choices for potus: Bernie Sanders all way and if I had to choice a republican it would be Cruz or Rubio and never Trump
Oh and about your arguments. Law and order is not "fear mongering", protecting american values is not "dangerous rethoric", his promises are being fulfilled (to the extent they let him), and there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about outsourcing jobs to China and wanting to make laws to stop that from being a good deal. He didnt say it wasnt good for him he said it was not good for the country. Oh you vote for Bernie, im sorry I thought I was talking with a conservative if I knew I was talking with a commie I wouldnt even bother to type all this, its useless.
Rdsxfn17 Your right, Americans define the term not as a mere synonym for conservational (as in reserving materialistic resources), but in the more philosophical way that means holding on to old ways of thought and conduct. This "Progressive" crap is exactly opposite of it, as in it means to tear down the country conceptually and pervert it into what Thomas Sowell is warning us of about the innumerable wannabe-aristocrats who mean to enslave the better man.
Like breathing pure oxygen... pity this great man is so elderly now, yet he carries the torch of truth that men like Milton Friedman carried. We salute you, Thomas Sowell, long may you live!
My heart can change just as like pressing a button on a TV remote control to change a channel just as much as my mind can. I mean that by when i hear different things said from all points of views!
1) Compared to what? 2) At what cost? 3) What hard evidence do you have? Three questions that out to be asked of any proposal before it is passed into law, and too seldom are.
This center left human doesn't hate Walmart for making money. But, that said, when somebody is that financially successful, I believe they DO have an obligation to pay a decent wage, so that people have decent housing, don't live in poverty and have to take food support to feed their family. If somehow that makes me a liberal in a conservative's eyes, well thank God for that. To whom much is given, much is required.
You can either mandate a wage (And how much is "decent" ? Isn't that a subjective term? A decent wage is different for a kid coming out of high school with no skills compared to someone who has 3 kids and a mortgage.) or you can let the market determine wage. Market benefit: if you are not making enough working at Walmart, then find another job that pays more. You may need to invest in yourself and learn a skill. Mandating wages: businesses will find ways to replace a worker's costs with capital investments such as more self-checkouts.
@@CAM-mj7fn Reality-Not everybody will go beyond a Walmart type job, millions will stay there their whole lives. We want people to improve their skills and always provide incentives to do so, but they may not be able to afford it, or they just are not very motivated, an adjective that also applies to those who have higher paying jobs. Yes, it's subjective, but certainly you can do a scientific study of a city or state of what you need to make to be able to find average housing and not need food support. Market disadvantage-sometimes the market is not indicative of real wage growth, like housing costs or higher education costs. I worked in a social service field and could barely afford a house in the not so great part of town. Others in my field often worked several jobs to be able to afford housing, especially if they were single.
But man wants to live in a hope - a hope for redemption, economic security, what have you [and all the more better if the basic needs are met without much in the way of effort on his part!!!]. The Conservative ethos does not promise any such stuff and hence the appeal for the leftist/liberal idealogy continues.
If nothing else, I have learned the three questions I should always ask. Sowell's wisdom and insight is astounding. Compared to what? At what cost? What hard evidence do you have?
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but there was a study out there that showed the difference in liberal and conservative mind sets. It basically boil down to, conservatives believe they can accomplish anything they set their minds to as long as they are disciplined, and liberals have impulse control problems and believe you can't change your conditions. Both groups attribute these qualities to everyone else. This seems to be the true difference when you really think about it.
Part 1 1) Liberals want to help the poor, 2) Conservatives want to help from being poor. I think No 2 is better ! Part 2 1) Conservatives don’t not assume all problems got a solution but will accept trade off . ( I hope I understand this right) 2) Liberal want to stamp out all evils. Problems is : all what cost ? ( hope I understand this correctly) I prefer no 1. Still learning the different between Liberal and conservative.
Great words of wisdom from Dr. Sowell. He has a gift for taking difficult issues and boiling them down so that others can understand them. If the USA would follow his advice, our economy would be amazingly strong instead of in the midst of huge unemployment and catastrophic deficits.
I think Thomas forgot about the developments of feudalism and capitalism. It’s not like human history just began, we can see how over the past millennium economics has changed social interaction as well as healthy competition. Also why do many political scientists consider their beliefs close to objectivity? None of us are right about everything and the more you disregard other arguments, the more extreme you become. There is no system that has ever made a society completely happy although they say Finland is the happiest, but many studies and statistics from academic sources show a direct relation between industrialization and suicide. Please stop perpetuating a divide in political ideologies, cause all your doing is ignoring statistics and giving your subjective opinion shunning all other views. Btw, that’s how u get miseducated. Thank you for zero words of wisdom Mr. Sowell.
For every problem there is a solution. For every solution there is a problem. Perhaps ignoring a problem is the best way to get rid of it without causing a different problem to appear? I think it was Morgan Freeman who when asked what he thought was the solution to racism replied 'ignore it until it goes away'.
I am so sorry, conservatives. I had you completely wrong. I have been a liberal all my life, but my understanding of the word seems today to have more in common with conservatives than so-called "liberals". My generation has been hoodwinked by the liberal media. Conservatism has been misrepresented as something unequivocally evil and liberalism as unequivocally good. I have woken up to the reality that the left/right divide is nothing that civilised people cannot bridge, but it is the authoritarianism on the extremes of both sides that no civilised person can abide. Some people here in this comment section are frothing at the mouth over homosexuals, blacks and interracial marriage. You are those people no civilised person can abide. You are an identical mirror image of the SJW's you despise.
"There are no solutions, only trade-offs" is a gem.
The conservative premise according to him
@@GrothendiecksWish Nah.
Yep, only trade-offs. Of course, only the wealthy ends up in a net positive because they have the capital to make that trade off. Meanwhile the not so wealthy are stuck in a dead-end job or even a job at all. This contradicts Thomas' other bullshit claim about the conservative premise, of wanting to make poor people not poor, and stop producing more poor people, because the already poor people have children, and they are poor, and most likely, poorer. This cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is the free market dystopia, pundits like Thomas like to propose.
A fact of life any adult should be able to recognize.
trade off meaning?
"I took a job in the government" that's the perfect answer
I am working for the government and can't wait to get the fuck out to start my own businesses. Only a few months to go.
Phant0m I worked in a city attorney's office and was always bewildered by the lack of urgency present within the office and all of the other departments at city hall for that matter. There was no motivation; the bureaucrats got their paychecks no matter how inept they were. Most all were good people, but the government is nowhere near equipped enough to do what it seeks to.
Currently readin Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Explains exactly why governments don't work. No competition, you get paid no matter what, lazy people demanind handouts all the time, the list goes on and on. It fucking SUCKS! In order to get things done, you'd have to have many people with the same mindset as yours, and they are nowhere to be found in the public sector.
Phant0m Absolutely, but let's radically expand said inept government at every turn! I'm sure that won't go horribly wrong!
Yeah, the US government, which is obviously the best example of any government in the world. Other countries couldn't possibly have better solutions and systems in place, and thus the whole political ideology fails. Right?
Wish this dude would've ran for president.
+Reverend Veritas Well well! I never knew reptiles had "obsessive desires for power, wealth and dominion over others"! I think you'll find that we mammals invented those things all by ourselves.
Hobbes put it best in the Leviathan: "In the first place I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well which he hath at present, without the acquisition of more."
+Reverend Veritas Why single out the reptile stage? All animals have such "evolutionary baggage," including the amphibians before them and the fish still further back in time. It is, in any case, impossible to imagine a life form that did not possess "instincts founded on self-preservation," nor would such a hypothetical being last very long. One senses that Sagan and others have selected the term "reptilian" simply because it sounds fiercer and more dramatic. The passage by Hobbes that I quoted elegantly sums up the reasons for human behaviour in such scenarios, and there really is no necessity to grope tens of millions of years backwards in time to find the behavioural causes.
+Tha Munk *wish this dude had run for president
+Reverend Veritas Couldn't one argue that Trump is "unabashedly honest?" I think George Carlin put it best when he said (& I'm paraphrasing here) we have no rights! The system is rigged & is setup to give the average person the "illusion" that they have freedom of choice.....it's sure a nice fantasy, though! (:
+DieFlabbergast ran*
Capitalists prefer what works, socialists prefer what sounds good.
come here in US where on average 45000 people die each year for lack of healthcare you know being poor .
do you want that in your country? thats what conservatives did to this country btw google it if you dont believe me.
atheistsimplicity Aye, lets give health care to everyone... Any good ideas on who will take care of the bills?
I am just a carpenter. If I need a 500 000 dollar surgery to survive, what right do I have to force more productive individuals than me to pay for it?
I have noting against people advocating welfare, only against welfare itself; socialists who advocate it... they all mean well, but they create something destructive. Welfare is a ponzy-scheme; There will always be more money going out than there is coming in.
atheistsimplicity You're kidding right? That's what conservatives did? The basic definition of a conservative is someone who does not support change unless it is a complete social and economic shift forcing said change. Conservatives don't actually "do" anything per se. Constitutionally this is not supported and in any constitutional republic the government is supposed to stay out of the private sectors such as health and other industries overall. If the person can't afford it, why should I have to pay it? I certainly don't want to burden someone else for my costs. So the solution to that is to get educated, get a job that pays better, and be able to afford it. That's what the U.S. and conservatives are about. Make your own life, it's how its supposed to be, and the middle and working classes have operated (successfully I might add) since the 1800's. Education is insanely wide spread and available so don't tell me you can't. You can. Education is the key to success and the key to a better society overall. So moral of the story. Wanna afford health care? get educated. that easy
Ola Nordmann I'd change your initial statement to capitalists prefer what works and explained whereas socialists prefer what _feels_ good.
Liberal Politician: "We must do something to help those people-- they're suffering. We have to act now. We've put it off too long."
Conservative Politician: "What have those people done to help themselves? Will your idea work? Can we fund it? Let's take this slowly."
Thomas Sowell is one of our top economists. He is well known among educated and well read people. Most of the comments critical of him show an outstanding level of ignorance. Buy one of his books and read it! You will not regret becoming more intelligent.
Most will never pick up a book after college, sad truth. But, we will keep pushing them, eventually it will do some good.
I find most of the praise for sowell to be ignorant. He is wrong on so many things.
@@defur45 let's hear them, respectfully.
@@kyleebrahim8061 He's wrong on welfare and he is wrong about the people who receive welfare. He lies about the people who get it, in saying that gov runs their lives. He is wrong on free market solutions. The Free market doesn't even exist. Big Business is a big reason for global poverty, not only the govs. Sowell and Friedman only like to blame the gov.
@@defur45 okay, now provide some evidence.
Still, after 60 or so years, not a hero in the Black community. Let that sink in....
Why is this? I have been seeing more comments like this and don’t understand it.
@@SandbagBouldering I've spoken to a few black people and tried the Sowell name drop and... nothing. Crickets. Really, they've never heard of the guy because he doesn't play ball or rap. It's that sad here. But, then they wonder why nothing ever improves in the black community (whatever that means)….
@The Life Analyst What has Buckley said that makes him a racist?
@The Life Analyst Exactly! Marxist and leftist are racist in their actions. He changed after working for the government and became an individualist, which isn't into group identity so no longer racist. Many black people are racist because they believe they've been victimized. Once you become an individual, it's about what you can do for yourself to improve. Watch the video and listen to him.
You know who are segregationists and racists? Louis Farrkhan and the Nation of Islam.
The 3 question that Thomas Sowell feels would destroy most of the arguments of
"The Left".
1.Compared to what?
2.At what cost?
3.What hard evidence do you have?
+Mullerornis >no logic, just emotions
Um, are you sure you aren't just talking about liberals?
+Mullerornis Oh please progressives and conservatives both have ridiculously stupid ideas and believes. The fact that you don't get it proves how stupid or young you are.
PS: "liberals" like you don't even fucking know what being liberal means. You guys are literally against the definition of liberalism.
>reality
lul
+Mullerornis Are you "latino" ? If you are sure sounds like you hate it. Turn around and go back south if living here does not give you enough opportunity. There are plenty of thriving, socialistic, dependent, poor latin countries to pick from! Quit sponging out of the conservative cash register, and do something for yourself. Either that or eat a bullit dipshit!
I like that.
Sowells book: The vision of the anointed, perfectly explains those who wish to play god and control the lives of others. Great read.
He sounds like just another anointed one, not that anyone them are completely wrong-headed. Pure smug.
The anointed are those that wish to force their vision of the world on everyone, who wish to control the lives of everyone. They believe they know what is right and just and also that the ends justifies the means. Which is why they are happy to violate others rights and freedoms in order to bring about their version of utopia. Sowell never does this. Has never done this. He could’ve run for office but never did. He’s a philosopher who never references himself in his books. Never gives his opinion. His work is very much just a history of economics and politics. I’ve read half a dozen of his books and the phrases “i think” or “what we should do” never once appears.
He’s sort of a libertarian and they believe that they dont have the right to force their vision of the world on anyone. If they have a vision at all it is a tragic one. That the world is a tragic place and always will be and Any attempt to change that will just result in unnecessary human suffering. Which he proves unequivocally in his book the vision of the anointed. One of his famous quotes is “there are rarely solutions, only trade offs”
I have to get that book. I knew it. I'm not the delusional one. I can relate to your comment it makes sense. Thank you for that. Question is, now that we're aware of this what could be done so that you can maneuver around them?
@@martinesejour3361 Shrink the size and power of the federal govt so that the anointed can’t alter life for everyone in the country on a whim. The solution is federalism where you can move to Texas or Florida when California becomes a dump and be governed by people more aligned with your values. The solution is recognizing that we need to stop trying to control the lives of others. The solution is freedom. But the anointed don’t value freedom. Start by being deeply suspicious of anyone, especially people who pay no price for being wrong, claiming to have a solution to a problem. We’ve seen this with covid where the anointed have done a lot of harm in their attempts to solve a problem.
@@genzcurmudgeon8037 Thank you, so much. This makes me feel so good and not disconnected in a world that I never agreed to be a part of.
This video basically confirmed to me that in my thinking I am 'pretty much' conservative, esp the description Thomas Sowell does at the end. Strangely, I spent most of my life having a liberal mindset, but in the last 4 years after questioning practically all of my beliefs, I now find myself firmly planted here, I could have never known this would happen, but listening to this is like coming home. Lately, because of all the stuff going on in the states around the election and the protests, I have really been questioning whether I am an evil person because of the value system I've constructed by digging inside; How Ironic, years ago, I used to think conservatives were Evil, and now I seem to identify with many conservative ideas, I'm questioning whether 'I' am evil or not, how ironic. I guess the years of conditioning I had goes very deep.
Concept of evil is just dumb in general. Mostly it's just ends up being an excuse/justification to not like something or attack others.
Yeah, it's hard not to become conservative as you get older. You realize more and more that the government can't and shouldn't be the answer for all of life's problems, and you want more and more to live your life how you want, with little to no interference form controlling forces.
Same boat. Used to be liberal in my thinking. Hell, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter...at first. Then I wanted a 3rd party to win. Libertarian or Green, I didn't care.
After the election was over. And the riots... This current climate we have now.. I can honestly say that I can consider myself conservative and or somewhat libertarian now.
And like you, I thought conservatives were the scum of the earth. I made fun of them.. all that. Life sure does have a funny irony.
There is evil out there pal, believe you me
JazzPianoObsessed You were always conservative. The problem was you were taught/ told that you were democrat, and possibly taught that conservatives are evil. Democrats are the ones truly evil and villianize us on the right as racist, sexist, everything under the sun. Step back and examine what’s going on and what both sides stand for. The left represents babylon, the right represents God. Amen 💯
I am a Mexican immigrant--came to the US when I was 16--and Dr Sowell helped change and shape my political and sociological ideas. God bless you Dr Sowell.
Such an impressive person!!
+james phoenix dude he's classy, well mannered and well spoken. Insirational
He's not an animal. Just because you agree with what he is saying doesn't make him impressive. He's a person just like us, capable of forming his own opinions without being patronized.
nothing short of brilliant
LOVE Thomas Sowell. Such a refreshing perspective he brings to life, which is so clear and true and real. Never get tired of listening to him speak.
Thank God for Thomas Sowell!!
basically: give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
teach a man to fish, and you helped feed him for a lifetime...
somewhere along the line, we as a society, forgot about this.
Society hasn't forgotten it. The guy who sells fish for a living has no interest in you being able to catch your own, so he pays the police to keep you off the boat. It's the fisherman in who's interest it is to _"conserve"_ this condition.
It doesn't matter how high conservatism claims to raise all boats. The only _"choice"_ you get is who to buy from.
That happens exactly because of and through the government. In a free market this scenario cannot take place.
Captain Buggy Nonsense.
OR the fisherman passes out free samples of his wares keeping the popuation barely sated through allocation of what he deems appropriate while stockpiling the best for himself. The population lap up what he provides thiking the fisherman is generous but the dishing out of tiny portions for freee creates a dependance the population find it hard to break free from.
Problem is conservatives want to teach him but provide him with no fishing tools to carry out what he's been taught
"The government was nowhere close to being capable of doing what people on the left wanted the government to do and we'd be lucky if they didn't make things worse."
Every time I hear this man talk, I am totally impressed by the insight and clarity with which he speaks.
"Every time I hear this man talk, I am totally impressed by the insight and clarity with which he speaks." - this.
Tell that to the nordic model in the whole western region of Scandenvian Europe where it's objectively the best place to live in the entire world in no small part due to government intervention.
Thomas Sowell speaks reason, sense and truth...brilliant man who speaks from experience not agendas
You know you love this man when you come home drunk, power up your PC and watch this video just because it makes you feel mentally good.
I do come here once in while to feel sane again
Keep soaking up dogma. Makes you feel like experts
Wow he absolutely nailed it. It is tough to find true clarity in a world, where everyone thinks they are doing the morally right thing.
This guy is a freaking genius!
Indeed he is!
An intellectual that takes sides in identity politics is no genius.
@@jessephillips3334 in which side is he on, may I ask?
@@734ch3r He is with the conservatives. I used to think Thomas Sowell was more neutral, a scientist who valued the data more than political gesturing, but now he has clearly shifted towards taking a side in the convervative vs. liberal drama which dominates the American media. I guess he needs to make money too. It doesn't pay to be a moderate and see value in both sides of the debate.
Jesse Phillips Lol you have no idea what "identity politics" mean. Ideas are not identity, they're identifiers
The "self anointed" is a very good way to describe these self righteous bastards.
They don't live with the "under class" don't understand their problems.
They stand around pontificating about everyone and everyting everyone while at their "wine and cheese parties" then drive home in a vehicle worth more than a working class persons mortgage.
This is actually a great point that a lot of people don't seem to see haha. A lot of 'liberals' here in SF are just guilty white people. They live in a home with a father and mother and kids who go to school, work, and live a libertarian, borderline conservative upper middle-class or practically upper-class lifestyle and then vote liberal??? They wouldn't for a moment trade places with someone in poverty. Chances are that person is mowing their lawn xD. Left-wing politics promote brainwashing and this weird collective mindset that just doesn't translate into reality.
Ron Paul, Thomas sowell, Walter Williams, Peter Schiff = living legends
Don't forget my main man Milton Friedman
Friedman is spinning in his grave.
Half-Nerd Half-Something Else Milton is the man but sadly not a living legend
And Walter Williams !
Many, many thanks to all of you.
I was completely unaware of the existence of these figures, with the exception of Thomas Sowell.
If it weren't for sharing their names and me researching one by one...
I would have less intellectual resources to reference and less knowledge before your comments.
Thank you for the golden gems!
I will enjoy these golden treasures to the fullest. 🥰
Wow never heard of him before now.
Google Larry Elder, Crystal Wright, Dinesh D'Souza, Gad Saad.
+Absolute History Thanks will try them next.
+HouseholdDog Check out Milton Friedman, John Stossel, Dave Smith, and Larken Rose. Also be sure to see my playlists. Lot of good content collected there.
better late than never! he's the absolute best
Thomas Sowell videos are lessons that most people need to watch!! At least you know him now
Have read through several threads here; mostly arguments between liberals and conservatives. I find them interesting because I've been both a liberal and a conservative in my lifetime. When I was young, and hadn't really experienced much of life yet, I was very liberal. Brought up in an FDR democrat family. Now, after 45 years of working for a living, dealing in the inner city with many of my stores and watching the steady deterioration of the people there despite all the social programs, I've become a conservative. Not to be confused with republican; I agree with conservative tenets but many republican positions and tactics drive me crazy. But I would challenge anyone espousing their liberal beliefs to work your butt off for a few decades and watch as others who have never worked in their lives spend your tax money. It's easy to spout liberal credos when you're not really in touch with the real world. Get down there and see your tax dollars at work, because in may ways that's the only work that's being done down there.
+buckfan1969 I think that all your anecdotal story tells us is that there's some truth to the Horseshoe Theory of Politics. In the end the far right and the far left want to achieve the same goals, they just have different reasons to turn us into an autocratic state.
I sincerely like how you differentiated between conservative and republican. Many - if not most - conservatives are in that boat. Yet, when it comes time to vote, a conservative most likely has to vote Republican because liberalism (Democrat) is death. Thanks for your post.
@LEO2001 You don't know anything about me, but yes, I do expect everyone to earn a living unless they're disabled. If that makes me a mean old man so be it.
@LEO2001 The first rule of economics is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for it. We should be focusing on why medical costs escalate at 4 times the inflation rate year after year instead of just throwing MORE money at it. We have a bad habit in this country of treating symptoms of problems rather than drilling down to the root causes. Health care wasn't an issue until companies started offering medical benefits after WWII due to the wage and price controls, since they couldn't offer higher wages. Once insurance was part of the equation, health care providers knew the patients wouldn't care what they charged, because the insurance company was paying for it. The insurance company didn't really care, because they just kept raising their premiums. And eventually it got so expensive that people HAD to have insurance. Do you really think it will get better if we take a horrible business model like that and expand it more? Continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. Or stupidity.
@LEO2001 Ran a Target Store in Detroit in the late 80's/early 90's, and we'd see the Canadians every weekend. Prices were 40-50% higher across the Detroit River, so they'd come over wearing their grungiest old clothes, buy stuff they could wear on their person; clothes, jewelry, etc., and put it on in the car in the parking lot, leaving the old clothes behind. Why? So they wouldn't have to pay the duty. I asked why they went through all that trouble, and they told me the prices over there were ridiculous. I remember they guy then saying, "But we've got free healthcare". I asked him; how about those people inland who can't come to a store in Detroit or Duluth and get stuff and normal prices? He shrugged. And they come to America for procedures, because the waiting list in Canada is 2-3 years for just about anything. So that's the rest of the story. My point still stands; it's time to fix the source of the problem instead of just throwing more money at the problems. We've been doing that since the 30's and it has been an abject failure. When will we ever learn?
Just witnessing the sheer brilliance of men like Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell makes my day. Listening to them for hours is a treat.
Very few people have the capacity to do a paradigm shift and completely change their philosophy. I've always liked Thomas Sowell. His answers are so well thought out.
Barack HO or Bernie Sanders, Kamala Adulterous Harris even Warren or Julian Castro with not dare debate AGAINST THOMAS SOWELL. THEN OR NOW
A wonderful gentleman.
DAMN.....WHAT A NATIONAL TREASUE THIS GENTLEMAN IS.
There is no 'difference' because they measure different things.
Liberals think for themselves; ideologues demand to be told what to think.
Conservatives keep things the same unless they are broke; radicals change things just to change things.
"Although the big word on the left is compassion, the big agenda on the left is dependency."
Thomas Sowell
The word on the right is dispassion, with an agenda of might makes right.
Hard to find anyone who States the truth about any given issue more plainly and brilliantly than Sowell.
Sowell's is an ideology of deep understanding. The world would be a better place if more people listened to him.
This interview makes so much sense during 2024 election season !
Fantastic explanation of the differences between parties. I am very proud to be a young conservative, despite the feminine liberalized generation I am apart of. These "appointed" utopianists unfortunately have slithered their ways into our universities, our media, and a huge portion of the government. I literally had to fake liberalism to pass some of my courses at a Cal-State University, this of course made me even more conservative. Another common characteristic I have noticed in the modern liberal is they have no respect nor understanding of our history and the foundation of this country, which is in itself one of the greatest stories of a birth of a nation. Our founders were far more educated and qualified than what we are stuck with today. The basic truths and laws of nature such as survival of the fittest does not reside in their brains. Pitifully enough, they actually think some type of utopia is possible where there is no war,everyone is politically correct, truth is silenced, we all drive Toyota prius's and bake vegan cookies singing around a camp fire passing legalized marijuana.
Proudly conservative in 2020. Whos with us!
For Sowell to explain free-market, conservative ideals to a liberal is equivalent to a physicist explaining quantum mechanics to an ant. No ability to comprehend...whatsoever.
Sowell said that explaining how prices and free market works to a liberal is like explaining how babies are made to a 6 year old. Which incidentally, liberals are trying to do in public school.
A very thoughtful, smart thinking man. We need more of this. More Thomas Sowell please.
You rarely see blacks that are this intelligent
Or whites for that matter
Sowell needs to make his voice heard much louder in the coming years and do what Friedman did.
OMG!
After 24 years working for DoD, here's exactly my thoughts about it.
Sowell is absolutely correct!
For all the hoopla about "running it like a business", there was really no incentive to do that.
There were problems that had existed for decades, everyone complained about it, but God help anyone who tried to fix it.
You always ran into exactly the same reasoning that made the problem appear to be the best answer to a bureaucratic jumble, when it obviously wasn't.
Gov't doesn't solve problems. It institutionalizes them!
That sounds like a very good way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberal premise tends to be that human nature is a blank slate, so it's the institutions that must be wrong. If we change the institutions in the right way, everyone will be happy. The conservative premise is that humans are born flawed as individuals. Flawed people build flawed institutions. There are no solutions, only trade offs. The goal is not to solve every problem, but to get the best tradeoff you can get.
I can see pessimism in the conservative view that, at times, can hold society back from needed progress. However, I can also see the arrogance of liberalism in thinking that it knows enough to truly solve society's problems without making things worse.
This man is a Treasure.
Have a look at the playlists I suggested, or at least look up "non-aggression principle".
"Multiculturalism" & "equality" are not principles. They are concepts (ambiguous ones, at that). They do not dictate a course of action.
Yes, the spectrum of political ideologies encapsulates a wide range of essentially arbitrary edicts. But the only thing that matters, and the only thing that truly divides the philosophies is "Do you believe it is moral and ethical to initiate violence against others?"
I wish I had a fraction of this man's intelligence.
What a humble comment, sending my respect!
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Tom Wolfe
Long live free markets
I love Thomas, what a brilliant man.
There is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives, both "sides" are of the same coin. It's time we looked at different options like the people run the government rather than choosing a leader to herd sheep.
Do you mean republican or conservative? There is a difference.
HitomiAyumu There is an illusion of difference.
Nicely put. Great video, wished I seen this a long time ago.
Liberal solution = treat the symptom. Food for the hungry. Welfare for the poor. Unemployment for those out of work.
Conservative solution = treat the illness. Improve the economy to reduce poverty. From there everything else will take care of itself.
Conservatives believe in "the individual". I didn't say Republicans - big difference. Liberals believe in "the system". Translation: One side believes "I can do this", while the other believes "they should do this". The real impasse is in the difference between "I" and "they". "I" is me - period. I'm responsible. "They" is a collective. No individual responsibility. At the end of the day, most of the societal ills would be eliminated, overnight, if every able-bodied person simply took care of the responsibilities for the face or legs that they shave each day. If you are able, and don't.... then who should? If you are able, and do, then why should you be punished for those who don't?
Right on, MrBud. Liberals (along with phony republicans) want the government to do it for them in the likes of smoking bans, restricting the size of sodas, raising their minimum wage, what light bulbs can be manufactured etc. The two most despised words by liberal's are 'personal responsibility'. "Never do for myself what the government can do for me". The exact opposite of what JFK, a democrat, believed in. This isn't the party of JFK, HHH, or H Truman anymore.
Liberals in power are very dangerous as they exploit easy targets such as the poor. It is in liberals' best interests to keep enough people poor and promise them benefits and gifts to ensure their continued allegiance. Their ultimate goal is to get the poorest 47% (who don't pay any income tax) to over 50%.
Wake up, America.
66limelight You do realize part of the reason why 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes is because of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (which eliminated the income tax for low-income people) along with their Earned Income Tax Credit program? And they still pay other taxes such as payroll taxes, sales taxes, and so forth.
Exactly.
What nonsense. Both liberalism and conservatism in the US encompass severe restrictions on personal freedoms.
Conservatives want to impose their moral and religious views on the rest of society, while minimizing their own obligations to the rest of society. They want everyone else to serve their view of the world and their personal needs and desires while giving nothing back. Individual conservatives tend to believe that minority rights should be protected when they're a member of the minority in question (for example, with religious congregations) but when other minority rights are at risk they cite "majority rules". American conservatives are short-sighted, self-interested assholes.
Liberals are about conforming to purity of process over results. They relate what they perceive to be social ills to problems with unjust process instead of pursuing practical measures to get practical results. Rather than looking at what kinds of actions produce beneficial outcomes, they defer to procedures that they consider "moral" or "just" based on ideological bullshit. They confuse cowardice with procedural correctness which is their biggest political flaw.
Neither American Liberals nor American Conservatives give a flying fuck about real world facts or actual outcomes. Getting results in the real world processes rarely conform with simplistic ideology.
mistajames3213
"Conservatives want to impose their moral and religious views on the rest of society"
I learned the other day that conservatives are supposed to be socially liberal in practise, even if their personal values differ. Much like Libertarians. They can differ in personal values, but in practise, they are strictly against legislating on personal values.
People should be clear about how they are using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" They are not, in my mind, equivalent to Democrat and Republican. GW Bush, for instance, can't be described as a conservative in the traditional sense, despite being a Republican.
pmcaninch42 Bush would be considered a New-Liberal according to modern definitions. I wouldn't base my label solely on economics btw. Take a look, though. Prove me wrong.
pmcaninch42 -- Karl Rove organized the single largest entitlement legislation since SS from FDR - Medicare Part D - so W could get reelected. And you're calling W conservative - LOL...
pmcaninch42
Do you really believe that? Noooo way!!! 1776-2008, just over 9 trillion in debt, 2009-2014 that has doubled, and he ain't done yet
pmcaninch42 "And i assume you think Obama's a communist as well? Even though all he's done is cut taxes and spending, deregulate corporations, and committed war crimes? From the sound of that he should be your favorite President ever, even Bush didn't cut spending."
???? What does that have to do with my Karl Rove comment???
pmcaninch42 you just reiterated my point - read what I wrote again. Karl Rove is not a conservative, he is a charlatan in professing to be conservative...
This guy lays everything out so well. I will no longer argue with any liberal until they take four minutes out of their life to watch this.
speakin' the truth
Yeah I agree, the Democrats are the richest people in the country by far and in the congress too.
Joe Ronnie Joe, the Democrats in CONGRESS are richer. In the free market REPUBLICANS tend to have higher incomes,contrary to the liberal media assertions.It's called "work" for you liberals who don't understand what that really is.
Dave Stang
I don't think that's what he meant brother.
Always value the wisdom of this guy . . .
the only type of people who are capable of understanding the contents of this video are the people who do not need to hear it...
ie 99% of people who click on this video are probably expecting some quippy little 1 liner, or were lookin for 1 simplistic single reason attributing everything to 1 narrow minded aspect
I read Sowell's book 'A Conflict of Visions' many years ago. The conclusion I remember taking away were 1) Liberals believe if you get smart enough people in powerful enough institutions, all problems can be fixed and man can be perfected; 2) Conservatives believe man is flawed, and the best way to make things better is to have voluntary exchanges and to diffuse power
Sowell is an American treasure and he is one of the very few public figures I would like to meet in person.
I don't like things being this biased. I think I'm just feeling dirty because I'm watching a Fox News clip though. I still respectfully disagree with Sowell though. He mostly talks about the extremists I think. Either way, I believe liberals and conservatives can be scummy and illogical in their own right. Every group can. Of course I don't think Sowell is. I just started watching his stuff and I love the guy. I just wish he wasn't so uptight about non-conservative folk. This conservative/liberal bickering is stupid.
+Lindi Rufus You seem to presume that the political center is where the truth must lie. It could be that one side--even the extreme of one side--is where the truth in fact lies.
Benjamin Meltzer Meh, I personally have both conservative and liberal views, but at the same time I don't get involved in politics. I just watch Sowell's videos to stimulate my brain. You could be right, but I keep my mind open to a bunch of things. I like the idea of the political center having the most truth though.
Conservatives see the BIG PICTURE, liberals only see the small, narrow-minded one.
Great minds talk about specific ideas, small minds talk about other people instead of ideas.
If the "pay" is not enough to disqualify you for welfare, it's too low. Corporations moving manufacturing out of the country, not paying taxes (or a low rate), taking taxpayers subsidies...this is the free market? I'm no liberal, I'm just saying these talking points defy facts and logic.
It's not just manufacturing. Plenty of non-manufacturing corporations are moving their HEADQUARTERS to Ireland, etc.
How do you feel about the U.S. having the highest corporate income tax rates in the OECD? Do you think that is big part of the problem?
testodude Highest on paper. Loopholes and subsidies cut that on paper rate substantially. On paper, I pay nearly 50%. In reality, it's less than 20%. Corporations do much better. In my opinion, if your corporation is not providing jobs here in America, those loopholes and subsidies are closed to you. Move it and lose it. Simple give and take.
Brimar7
Accounting rules in the US do make a difference, as you imply, but US is still the highest, I believe, although a few others, like New Zealand are very high.
testodude I think the biggest issue for me is people demonizing our poorest citizens, while not acknowledging the fact that we, as taxpayers, pay far more in corporate "welfare". Oil corporations, for example, are highly profitable. Why do they qualify for subsidies? To me, that's a much more valid discussion that feeding the poor in today's economy.
I acknowledge there's fraud. There will be when money is involved. The bigger fraud is handing billions to corporations that make billions. If we're going to give tax dollars away, I'd much rather use that money to at least attempt to better the lowest among us. Stop the unnecessary subsidies. Limit the current welfare system and as a taxpayer, I'd be somewhat satisfied.
I am with you. I don't demonize corporations that operate within the law, as all the stakeholders are PEOPLE under the covers. For example, Ford employees roughly 200,000 people, millions of shareholders and customers. However, they do have way too much influence over legislators. I think the corporate tax rate should be pealed back a little-- and subsidies and tax cheats have to GO. Peace, my friend.
"You want to keep them from being poor!". How is that working out. Walmart employees need to be on food stamps because of corporate greed. And who do you think pays for that, the working poor people, Thanks to conservative tax breaks for the rich. Give me a break, with this conservative Dreck.
The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Conservatives base their ideas off of systems we know that work. Liberals... not so much.
The Demokrats formed the KKK..need i say more?
+Kenny Savoy Yes let's use the political parties positions of the 1860s as the basis for current political thought.
It hasn't changed at all..the WH is the plantation Dems. use..think about that..
Yup back in the day most blacks voted republican kkk lynched blacks for political reasons rather than race. They don't teach u that in school though
+Kenny Savoy I mean the confederates were the democrats. Yet somehow today it's a different picture lol
Answer to his three questions that 'destroy' liberals re minimum wage:
1) Compared to what: The minimum wage in the rest of the developed world.
2) At what cost: So little it has no impact on employment.
3) Hard evidence: Proven around the world. Economic stats of other countries.
3. There is no issue small enough that is discussed that has no impact on employment.
2. Economic stats of other countries? What other country has a overall higher standard of living than the United States.
1. Just because the rest of the world has a minimum wage does not obligate the U.S. to have one also. If anything we should abolish the minimum wage to demonstrate to other countries how the minimum wage hurts employment.
Look I would agree with raising the minimum wage if the facts showed that it didn't harm people.
Dillon Thompson
1) Its not about obligation, its about getting the best result. If you check out a list of minimum wages highest to lowest, you'll see the is no correlation with unemployment at all. The industries affected like retail just pass the cost on. You wont get more sales staff if minimum wage is lower, just prices that are a few cents lower to the buyer. Nearly all minimum wage jobs are in services, not manufacturing.
2) Higher standard of living than the US? Many, but how do you measure it? Does needing a security guard in front of your condo count as lower stand of living? It does for me. So does getting harassed for change at the train station.
Do you really want to create a feudal type society where 30% live wealthy enclosed in electric fenced complexes to keep the plebs out and 70% live poor and serve the 30%? That's where unregulated capitalism leads.
3) I was referring to minimum wage specifically.
Exactly how many people do you employ? I currently have 120 people working for me and any increase in the minimum wage WILL impact my decisions for expanding my business as much as the ACA has impacted some of my employees' working hours.
Try running your own business and then come back and tell us how things work in the real world instead of in your fevered imagination.
Your business is in a country with the lowest taxes and lowest minimum wage in the developed world so just shut up.
TanzanianRoots Lowest taxes? What a joke.Also the idea that you should shut up because the government is only stealing a smaller amount of your money than other governments is a red herring.
Very articulate explanation of the differences between the two philosophies.
Brilliant
Sowell creates a straw man of Rousseau and then applies it the contemporary liberal position.
Rosseau did not base his criticism of social ills solely on the argument that our institutions are wrong. Although he did criticize institutions, Rousseau's concept of moral freedom (today usually referred to as positive freedom or civil rights), he understood was only enabled through the institution of government.
Sowell leaves out that, like conservatives, Rousseau also believed in flawed human nature. Flawed human nature leads to flawed institutions, it follows. The nuance in Rousseau's position is empirical. He studied other, more "primitive" cultures and saw that their institutions were not focused on private wealth and negative freedom (freedom from, which is at the core of individualism). It's not that these other cultures did not have their own institutions, per se, but that their more egalitarian society did not produce inequality so rampant in ours. He understood the hypocrisy of European conquistadors condescending to so-called primitives.
Sowell's view of conservatism:
"There are no solutions there are only trade offs. Whatever you do to deal with one of man's flaws creates another problem. You try to get the best trade off you can get. That's all you can hope for."
It is a straw man to say that the Left is only about ensuring equal outcome. This is the most disingenuous of politically motivated spins. Anyway, this is a preposterous argument because considering outcomes (or possible outcomes) is utilitarianism in a nutshell and is always part of any cost-benefit analysis whether one is a strict utilitarian or not, and regardless of where one is in the political spectrum.
Saying "you try to get the best trade off you can get" is not a position unique to conservatives and it is disingenuous for Sowell to spin it that way. That is exactly what everyone does. The implication here is that the Left should not push things to far, except things as they are, as the best they can be. This is laughable. It is the classic conservatism: don't try to change things, you'll only upset the status quo. The Left is about recognizing negative externalities and addressing them. You would think that the Right, with their focus on negative rights, would appreciate the Left's concern for negative exernalities as they are an infringement on the sovereign person. Even Rothbard understood this. But in today's climate of politicizing facts, it is an inconvenient truth to acknowledge for the likes of the partisan Sowell.
In the case of Walmart raising their wages, I'll accept Sowell's challenge and answer the 3 questions that are supposed to stump me.
Compared to what? -
Compared to a "living wage" for example. Does Walmart or any company have a right to pay subsistence wages just because the workers are "weak agents" and not in a position to get a living wage. Why should I as a tax payer have to subsidize Walmart's employees standard of living by paying for their food stamps because Walmart is in a position to exploit the situation. We know that Walmart can afford a higher wage. Look at their profits. Their competitor Costco does and they do not have the level of profits that Walmart does.
At what cost? -
The cost may result in less than 25 cents per check out transaction if the cost is passed on to customers without laying anyone off. Then there is the benefit to the economy from the demand that more money in the hands of low wage employees creates. There is also the general social benefit of everything that comes from reducing poverty, stronger families, communities, higher self esteem, opportunity, better health, etc etc. That is the "cost" Mr Sowell.
What hard evidence do you have?
There are plenty of studies that show an aggregate advantage to the economy by raising the minimum wage. Google it. Is it a consensus? No. We're not simply talking science here, we're talking values as well. There is a petition in circulation that has over 600 signatures from prominent US economists. Sure, this issue might not have the 97% virtual consensus of the climate change issue, but Sowell probably denies that too. So, is evidence really the issue?
If you don't believe that a big chunk of leftists in the West believe in low/no compromise solutions, you must be discussing these matters on a different internet than the one I've been on. There are millions of very loud and opinionated individuals out there who would honestly see no possible negative outcome to forcefully taking resources from everyone with" too much" and redistributing equally to everyone in the world, and then offering the same wages going forward to all professions, regardless of qualifications. There are millions upon millions of people on the left who would have no clue what could possibly go wrong there. That is the reason why these kinds of discussions can never go forward. The arguments that sophisticated economists get wrapped up in don't even apply here. The level of discourse way down here in the land of the commoners is filled to the brim with crap. misinformation. and a distinct lack of real world experience. The OWS mentality has completely taken over the millennial generation, and they're next at bat to lead our countries into the future. Hopefully they'll grow up before it's their turn.
"There are millions of very loud and opinionated individuals out there who would honestly see no possible negative outcome to forcefully taking resources from everyone with" too much" and redistributing equally to everyone in the world"
That's because they understand something you don't. They understand that societies have goals that go beyond any individual goals. The genius of successful human society is getting the balance between individual (private) and collective (public) rights worked out. It's the way humans lived through most of our history. It's only relatively recently in human history that we created a new way to distribute resources through capitalism. But capitalism is a redistribution of resources as well. As Proudhon famously said, "property is theft". Even Stefan Molyneux -- whom I normally disagree with -- admits that tracing back most property to its original acquisition results in a moral problem. Capitalism is simply a reorganization of feudalism and it favors the wealthy. If you happen to be borne of the golden vagina, you're fine. If not, you must rely on those with money to survive. Everyone but libertarians seems to get that this is inherently unfair, which is why we regulate capitalism. The most successful societies on the planet -- Western European -- (in terms of happiness and standard of living metrics) redistribute wealth through taxation more than the US. So, if you're an apologist for capitalism, you're in the right place. The US govt is the most libertarian in the world.
"offering the same wages going forward to all professions, regardless of qualifications."
I've never heard this promoted by anyone. This is the typical ignorant fear that reactionaries have to the word egalitarianism because they don't know what it means, ascribe to it your description, but can't even be bothered to google it, apparently.
"There are millions upon millions of people on the left who would have no clue what could possibly go wrong there."
People are naive on both sides. But we know what works, we know what makes for a decent society and what doesn't. Totalitarianism doesn't work -- whether it's socialist or fascist brand. Anarchism is a pipe dream -- left or right. But laissez faire also does not work. People revolted against it and rightly so.
"The level of discourse way down here in the land of the commoners is filled to the brim with crap. misinformation. and a distinct lack of real world experience."
Commoners? That shows where you're coming from. Why are you stooping to educate the commoners? Shouldn't you be publishing in the Heritage Foundation or The National Review? Your comments, to me, are as ignorant as any. Not just ignorant but dangerous.
"The OWS mentality has completely taken over the millennial generation, and they're next at bat to lead our countries into the future. Hopefully they'll grow up before it's their turn."
People may be ignorant about economics but they understand basic fair play and that is what they're reacting against. You're a garden variety reactionary. If people were as OWS as you claim, taxes would be what they were in the FDR Truman and Eisenhower administrations. You reactionaries are lucky that so many people are ignorant. If they weren't, if they really understood how they're being exploited, they'd tear down your casino society.
canteluna If the United States government is the most libertarian in the world, then the world certainly isn't very libertarian at this point, because I see in the United States multi-billion dollar "stimulus" packages and bailouts of failed businesses, progressive income taxes, inheritance taxes, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, social security, nationalized healthcare, warrantless wiretapping, spying, and torture, gay marriage and marijuana possession still being illegal in most states, a noose tightening strongly around the Second Amendment, countless abrogations of the First Amendment to the point where children can't even where an American flag shirt to public schools without being castigated.
SamSederIsAnIdiot "If the United States government is the most libertarian in the world, then the world certainly isn't very libertarian at this point"
I meant it is the most libertarian of the 1st world countries. There are a few 3rd world countries that have no government to speak of and many more that have weak government and they aren't capitalist bastions. Why? Because it isn't a lack of government that allows a market to thrive, it's institutions (one of which being government) and culture. (The reason you can't simply "impose" capitalism onto countries like Somalia or East Congo, for example, is because their cultures don't have the kind of institutions that allow capitalism to thrive. They are still basically feudal and patrilineal societies.)
And, no, the world isn't very libertarian because societies aren't created by idiot-know-it-alls on youtube. Societies are complex and cultural norms change fairly slowly.
"progressive income taxes, inheritance taxes, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, social security, nationalized healthcare"
These were all instrumental in creating the once largest middle class in the world. Now that we can no longer make that boast, the countries that can, all have the things you mentioned. People (except some of the wealthy and the ideologically ignorant, want these things because they understand that it takes positive rights to create opportunity for all, not simply a society of inherited wealth. Why do you think the progressive politics caught on in this country and in others. And look at the countries that don't have progressive policy, they are not places you libertarians -- or anyone else -- would choose to live, especially if you're not born wealthy).
"warrantless wiretapping, spying, and torture"
These things are a result of govt unaccountable to "the people" (and to it's own constitution). The better question is why that is the case when we allegedly have a constitutional democratic republic. Answer is somewhat complex but mostly because of the lack of democratic institutions, mostly the conservative family and most work places where people are conditioned to "know their place" and to not question authority. Governments get away with a lot because they are mostly beholden to special interests, not to "the people" and then the people's apathy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
"gay marriage and marijuana possession still being illegal in most states"
Social issues are complex and not as simple as libertarians would like to believe. You people seem to think that by not having a government responsible for creating laws (usually the laws that people lobby for) that people just accept any behavior that doesn't affect them personally. And that may be true to some extent, but where you're wrong is in the concept of victimless crime. Because people are social, we are all effected by the behavior of others. Take drunk driving as an example. The harsh laws against drunk driving have significantly reduced the deaths of accidental death due to drunk drivers. In a libertarian society, anyone could drive as drunk as they like and then face the consequences when they injure or kill someone. But then it is too late, of course. What does the family of a victim care that the drunk driver that killed their loved one goes to jail or pays compensation?
Most people don't want their kids doing drugs (except now maybe for marijuana) and they realize that having drugs available in the culture is a potential harm to their children and so they don't want the drugs in their communities. The problem with that view is that the drugs are already available and making them "legal" won't change their availability much. As for gay marriage, the argument against it isn't rational. It's simply an inherited phobia, a cultural norm that has been changing due to several factors, one of which being the constitutionality of gay rights.
"children can't even where an American flag shirt to public schools without being castigated"
Another social norm issue mostly. Respect for sacred symbols is an ancient social norm and their guardians get offended when others disrespect them. People want to use the flag in a disrespectful way to make a political point. If it weren't disrespectful they wouldn't bother.
The point of these last two issues is one of rights. Libertarians mistakenly believe that negative rights are a default position, they're not. Rights must be protected by an authority granted by "the people" (such as govt) or they aren't rights.
In a libertarian society, Blacks in the 1850s may have had no legal barrier to socialize with Whites but that isn't the point. In an anarchist society, there are no rights, there are only private contracts. And, more importantly, what fills the vacuum of govt are other institutions, namely the family and businesses. Prior to the state (first created by China over 2000 years ago) societies were patrilineal (i.e. tribal) and that is how people would organize again in the absence of the state (we know that from examples where the state collapses or becomes very weak). There would be no rule OF law (as opposed to rule BY law) or accountability of institutions except to those who endow them.
All governments are corrupt to some extent for the same reason that individuals are corrupt. But the extent is important. Denmark is not North Korea. Both have governments and so what is the difference between them? One boasts the happiest people on the planet and the other is a living nightmare for most of the people. The important question is, are the social institutions responsive to people's needs? Do people trust the institutions? Is authority accountable? Are the rules and laws the same for everyone?
Libertarians need to ask themselves if they really want to live in a society without rule of law or accountable powers. Government is not something I am happy with any more than you are. The difference between us is that I see it as inevitable and therefore try to make it as responsive to "the people" as possible. The absence of government simply means that powerful institutions are not accountable to "the people". If that's your preference then I would question your values and goals.
I didn't comment on min wage. People who don't believe in min wage are ideologues and don't mind "punching down" to the most vulnerable in society. I've had a lot to say on it. You can find my comments elsewhere. Check out the Intelligence Squared debate and listen to Jared Bernstein make mincemeat of his libertarian opponents on this subject.
And if you think Sam Seder is an idiot why not debate him? Tell him where he's wrong. He loves to take calls from libertarians.
canteluna A pretty rambling response to a statement you yourself conceded was wrong. I see no reason to respond to everything in this post when it's going so far off topic.
i smirk at the fact that FOX news gets Sowell on thinking he backs up all the nonsense they spew
*****
And hopefully a new first one while he's at it.
Dr. Thomas Sowell Is An Absolute American Treasure.
Trump needs to hire this guy......and FAST! (:
He actually spoke out against Trump! Haha www.nationalreview.com/article/424008/now-no-time-be-voting-president-based-emotion-thomas-sowell
+Greg Ramirez Sorry for the late response, but interesting article.....the only point I would argue against is: who is better qualified to be president? Sure, if this was an election based soley on someone's resume, Trump might just be where Bush is now - & that place is "absolutely nowhere!" But, people are just sick in tired of the same 'ol song-and-dance in Washington. Will Trump, if elected, act any different than a Cruz or Bush would? I think that's a bet Americans (Republicans) are willing to take.
+CL J Agreed.....I see Sowell as a Rand Paul fan.
+Google spies on you Trump isn't qualified to run for the highest position for one of the world's most powerful nations because he has demonstrated poor judgement (in speech and in action) to fear mongering to dangerous rhetoric, empty promises and blatant hypocrisy. He says he wants to make America strong again by bringing in and providing jobs to Americans, yet he outsources jobs to China, Mexico and Bangladesh to make his clothes. Actions speak louder than words. Is any candidate perfect? Hell no. It's politics so there is so much shit on all sides. These are my choices for potus: Bernie Sanders all way and if I had to choice a republican it would be Cruz or Rubio and never Trump
Oh and about your arguments. Law and order is not "fear mongering", protecting american values is not "dangerous rethoric", his promises are being fulfilled (to the extent they let him), and there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about outsourcing jobs to China and wanting to make laws to stop that from being a good deal. He didnt say it wasnt good for him he said it was not good for the country. Oh you vote for Bernie, im sorry I thought I was talking with a conservative if I knew I was talking with a commie I wouldnt even bother to type all this, its useless.
Conservative: I can make my own life however I want.
Liberal: I'm a victim and I can't do anything on my own. Someone has to do it for me.
LEO2001 - I have seen many liberals say that...I don’t get the point of a liberal or conservative if you both do disgusting ass shit.
Most Liberal Country : Switzerland
Most Conservative Country : North Korea
Which one would you choose?
DynamicUnreal North Korea isn't conservative, it's totalitarian.
Rdsxfn17 North Korea is totalitarian and conservative.
Maybe in the literal sense, but not the way Americans define the term.
Rdsxfn17 Your right, Americans define the term not as a mere synonym for conservational (as in reserving materialistic resources), but in the more philosophical way that means holding on to old ways of thought and conduct. This "Progressive" crap is exactly opposite of it, as in it means to tear down the country conceptually and pervert it into what Thomas Sowell is warning us of about the innumerable wannabe-aristocrats who mean to enslave the better man.
this explains why every time we have ever had a republican president that our country is instantly communist
Can't get enough of this guy, only discovered him a couple of years ago but I got like 6 of his books lol
Conservatives: Facts over feelings
Liberals: Feelings over facts.
Then explain why republicans voted to repeal the irs agents expansion to catch criminals who don’t pay taxes?
@@Johnjackjackecause is illegal to pay taxes according to founders the federal reserve was illegal established in 1913.
Annoyed that there is no description stating this man's name nor does it appears in the video. Who is he? I want to learn more about him.
Thomas Sowell
@@TigonKarate Thank you tons! Greatly appreciate it.
@@PaddysPubPatron You're welcome! He's written several books on economics.
Mr. Sowell, such an honest speaker & writer, never fails to amaze!
I always enjoy listening to Thomas.
Like breathing pure oxygen... pity this great man is so elderly now, yet he carries the torch of truth that men like Milton Friedman carried. We salute you, Thomas Sowell, long may you live!
This is the mentor i have been looking for.
This man taught me how to write persuasively
The only argument I would accept against Sowell is if someone says he's not libertarian enough. I agree to that.
My heart can change just as like pressing a button on a TV remote control to change a channel just as much as my mind can. I mean that by when i hear different things said from all points of views!
I hope Dr. Sowell does not go into complete retirement. I love these videos and his commentary.
He's still writing columns, just not every week.
1) Compared to what?
2) At what cost?
3) What hard evidence do you have?
Three questions that out to be asked of any proposal before it is passed into law, and too seldom are.
This center left human doesn't hate Walmart for making money. But, that said, when somebody is that financially successful, I believe they DO have an obligation to pay a decent wage, so that people have decent housing, don't live in poverty and have to take food support to feed their family. If somehow that makes me a liberal in a conservative's eyes, well thank God for that. To whom much is given, much is required.
You can either mandate a wage (And how much is "decent" ? Isn't that a subjective term? A decent wage is different for a kid coming out of high school with no skills compared to someone who has 3 kids and a mortgage.) or you can let the market determine wage. Market benefit: if you are not making enough working at Walmart, then find another job that pays more. You may need to invest in yourself and learn a skill. Mandating wages: businesses will find ways to replace a worker's costs with capital investments such as more self-checkouts.
@@CAM-mj7fn Reality-Not everybody will go beyond a Walmart type job, millions will stay there their whole lives. We want people to improve their skills and always provide incentives to do so, but they may not be able to afford it, or they just are not very motivated, an adjective that also applies to those who have higher paying jobs. Yes, it's subjective, but certainly you can do a scientific study of a city or state of what you need to make to be able to find average housing and not need food support. Market disadvantage-sometimes the market is not indicative of real wage growth, like housing costs or higher education costs. I worked in a social service field and could barely afford a house in the not so great part of town. Others in my field often worked several jobs to be able to afford housing, especially if they were single.
Higher Minimum Wage= less jobs and higher prices
But man wants to live in a hope - a hope for redemption, economic security, what have you [and all the more better if the basic needs are met without much in the way of effort on his part!!!]. The Conservative ethos does not promise any such stuff and hence the appeal for the leftist/liberal idealogy continues.
Thank you Dr. Sowell! God bless this American treasure
I'd love to hear a couple lectures by this man. Very good stuff.
He seems like a very logical man. Really enjoying his talks and insights.
"Compared to what..?" "At what cost..?" "What hard evidence do you have..?" Lol
If nothing else, I have learned the three questions I should always ask. Sowell's wisdom and insight is astounding.
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What hard evidence do you have?
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but there was a study out there that showed the difference in liberal and conservative mind sets.
It basically boil down to, conservatives believe they can accomplish anything they set their minds to as long as they are disciplined, and liberals have impulse control problems and believe you can't change your conditions.
Both groups attribute these qualities to everyone else. This seems to be the true difference when you really think about it.
These are brilliant questions for all liberal "compassionate" policies --1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?
Part 1
1) Liberals want to help the poor, 2) Conservatives want to help from being poor.
I think No 2 is better !
Part 2
1) Conservatives don’t not assume all problems got a solution but will accept trade off . ( I hope I understand this right)
2) Liberal want to stamp out all evils. Problems is : all what cost ? ( hope I understand this correctly)
I prefer no 1.
Still learning the different between Liberal and conservative.
Great words of wisdom from Dr. Sowell. He has a gift for taking difficult issues and boiling them down so that others can understand them. If the USA would follow his advice, our economy would be amazingly strong instead of in the midst of huge unemployment and catastrophic deficits.
I remember seeing him in college,this is a real american,a good guy, happy to be on you tube!
I think Thomas forgot about the developments of feudalism and capitalism. It’s not like human history just began, we can see how over the past millennium economics has changed social interaction as well as healthy competition. Also why do many political scientists consider their beliefs close to objectivity? None of us are right about everything and the more you disregard other arguments, the more extreme you become. There is no system that has ever made a society completely happy although they say Finland is the happiest, but many studies and statistics from academic sources show a direct relation between industrialization and suicide. Please stop perpetuating a divide in political ideologies, cause all your doing is ignoring statistics and giving your subjective opinion shunning all other views. Btw, that’s how u get miseducated. Thank you for zero words of wisdom Mr. Sowell.
Well written.
For every problem there is a solution.
For every solution there is a problem.
Perhaps ignoring a problem is the best way to get rid of it without causing a different problem to appear? I think it was Morgan Freeman who when asked what he thought was the solution to racism replied 'ignore it until it goes away'.
He's a genius. He's in his 90's now, I wish he would share his thoughts on current events.
I wish there were thousands of Thomas Sowells... He and Milton Friedman are heroes! EVERYONE should listen to them (or better yet, read their work)!
I am so sorry, conservatives. I had you completely wrong.
I have been a liberal all my life, but my understanding of the word seems today to have more in common with conservatives than so-called "liberals".
My generation has been hoodwinked by the liberal media. Conservatism has been misrepresented as something unequivocally evil and liberalism as unequivocally good.
I have woken up to the reality that the left/right divide is nothing that civilised people cannot bridge, but it is the authoritarianism on the extremes of both sides that no civilised person can abide.
Some people here in this comment section are frothing at the mouth over homosexuals, blacks and interracial marriage. You are those people no civilised person can abide. You are an identical mirror image of the SJW's you despise.