+lorem ipsum I don't think that is who he had in mind, as he said someone under 55 who wasn't born in the lap of luxury...honestly the name that came to mind for me was Rubio...not that he is my favorite candidate...but that is who I thought of...
It's not just the subsidy - I know from sad personal experience. If you don't sign up in time, you are NOT ALLOWED to buy compliant insurance, and you are fined for not having it! The only way to avoid the fine is to go on Medicaid retroactively. This happened to me - I was forced to take Welfare (Medicaid) to avoid being fined!
I am speechless -almost; this man is one of two things! A brilliant ventriloquist and 'corrupter of our youth' or arguably the sharpest mind among those I've been exposed to. Since I distrust my reflex's I tip my hat, his next beer is on me!
+Anogoya Dagaati Like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E Williams, Richard Epstein was swept under the rug by the mainstream media. God I hate the Leftist media.
God help us! I don't have TV at home precisely for this reason. All the production is filtered through such myopic minds that I can barely endure nearly everything thats on there. I come to TH-cam because at least here I can choose my content. His prose is just unreal and the quality of his thinking in dissection of matters. Man! I could go one but I'd be preaching to the choir! Keep learning my friend!
1) Richard Epstein's brain belongs in a museum; 2) When Richard Epstein speaks Latin it sounds like he's speaking Yiddish which makes me want to hug him and never let go.
Didn’t we already have a history in this country of no minimum wage? Isn’t that why we now have minimum-wage laws because it was seen that employers would all collectively not pay their employees and value them? The employees had no choice to go anywhere else because everywhere else all paid the same low wage because greedy people are trying to get rich anyway they can even off the backs of their workers. Hello HELLOOOOO ! Isn’t that why we had to create the laws because we already saw what happens when there are no laws of a minimum standard at the very least a minimum standard because they’ll do what they’re doing already in China and India and everywhere else pay as little as possible so they can get rich as quick as possible. This is one of the areas in the free market that government has to intervene in because of negative human traits .
It is really interesting how people who are proponents of the raising the minimum wage pay no price themselves if they are wrong and gain no benefit if they are right.
Any explanation of how Scalia and Kennedy reversed regarding the 8th circuit decision - Scalia allowing them to require homosexual marriage, and Kennedy saying no.
I think the first Scotus decision on ACA was activism, but not the second. Everyone knows the law was badly written, but it's public record to know what how it was advertised to function.
The intent was to create an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges. What other laws should the executive unilaterally change if they don't have their intended effects?
Different parts of the law were written at different times. At the time the part that says "State" was written, a federal system was not thought to be necessary. But then they added one. Just like the second amendment uses the militia to give an example of why you'd need the right to bear arms. Taken as a whole, and comparing what advertisers of the bill were saying at the time, it's clear how the law was supposed to work.
Wizmut It seems to me that the whole concept of having separate state exchanges and allowing states to opt out was a compromise required to get enough votes to pass it. If circumstances have changed since then it's up to Congress to update the law but it's NOT up to the administration to re-write the thing unilaterally. Have you listened to the comments of Jonathan Gruber on the matter? "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits"
The thing about gay marriage that bothers me is that marriage was setup to increase the success of child rearing so why should we extend the same benefits to couples who cannot have children is this special rights? Also im concerned that government will now try and interfere with gay peoples relationships as well through litigation and new laws. If the gay marriage is really deregulating relationships then it has my support.
+DirtyNewby You can, but the point is that it per the constitution, it should be done by vote at the state level, rather than government fiat....marriage is a power given to the states rather than the federal government...we live in a republic not an oligarchy...
Very enlightening discussion and his Brooklyn accent and manner of speaking makes it seriously entertaining. I would love to see him in an actual debate. Reminds me of the way WFB Jr could skewer people with such verbosity and eloquence but in a different almost like a woody-allen style. In regards to the last bit about pres candidates, I get his point about Ted Cruz but I think Rand Paul has been every bit as acerbic(to use the same word) as Cruz is. I think what you're saying is neither of them are really ready for prime time yet, but I felt like you were saying Rand Paul is one step ahead of Cruz I see them more being at about equal level right now.
DreamAboutSpace "excessive returns to capital". I will try my best to explain for you, DreamAboutSpace. Capital has two definitions; a financial/accounting one, and an economics one. 1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash. (accounting/finance) 2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business and used in production. (economics) essentially right now income inequality is arriving from an excessive return on capital, meaning wall street etc. is making boatloads of money off of financial assets etc. (that is atleast the narrative) return on capital= profit what Richard Epstein is alluding too is that when there is more competition for labour, capital, land etc, profits are reduced. the classic example is two salesmen offering lower and lower prices to a consumer. it is in his opinion that in a freed, growing economy, the competition for everything expands and it reduces returns or investment. essentially the competitive process will ensure there aren't excessive returns on capital. is he correct? no idea i am no economist, but then again, neither is he. hope I helped.
There are a limited number of ways to rephrase the truth? It's like the Tolstoy quote, "All happy families are alike; all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way."
Rich guys talking about how I should be happy that I now earn $9.50/hour instead of $9.00/hour. While they have more than they could ever use. And we are supposed to trust the rich because? Trickle down tends to stick to the fingers of those above us.
Stephen Garfield You criticize these men's ideas while being too ignorant to even know that trickle down economics is entirely a strawman from the left. Looks like you drank the mainstream kool aid. Further, who says either of them is rich? Please move to Europe, you greedy prole, before you help the American left ruin the Republic even more than they already have.
Jak Kuhl Thank you, Jak. "Trickle down" was an invention of Ted Kennedy, I believe, who was a fount of awful ideas, and a generally rotten human being, which tells you something about the average Massachusetts voter. In truth, capitalism has nothing to do with "trickle down." A capitalist puts their investment forward with no guarantee that he will see a return on the investment. Meanwhile, Stephen Garfield gets a paycheck every week. The capitalist can lose everything. Stephen is guaranteed what he has been able to negotiate. In contrast, Progressive economics - where money is either taken from others, or conjured out of thin air - is poured down in the assumption that it will result in … well, nobody actually knows. Because the fact that you want something (demand-side) doesn't mean anyone will make it happen. In any event, there is no connection between those who spend money, and the responsibility for how productive that money is.
You're either young, useless or inexperienced if you only make minimum wage. I don't think I've ever worked for minimum wage in my life. Although, I did start my job as an intern getting paid nothing. Had there been a law against that I may have never even gotten the job in the first place. A good example of how it can potentially hurt people starting out in the labour market.
MrGp59 I think I ma going to need some proof of what you are saying. I have seen him debate with many other academics who hold him in the highest regards.
MrGp59 He has to be intellectually dishonest because the empirical data shows that Reaganomics doesn't work the way the right wing politicians claim it does. There is a bizarre psychological phenomenon where a certain percentage of the population will refuse to change their ideas once consolidated, no matter how much evidence is given to prove they are wrong. The most bizarre part about this is that it's been observed that the more thorough and more comprehensive the evidence against their belief is, the more they will double down and refuse to change their stance. This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one.
Lets agree that it does not work. So what do we do? Should we listen to Paul Krugman? Should we mandate that anything someone makes over a million dollars should be spread among the people? Should we move to a France style economic system?
L3opard123 "This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one." This could also explain why leftist economics is also bitterly clinging to life, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of its failure provided by the 20th century. FTR, mercantilism is a "right wing" economic theory. Free Enterprise is free. Leftists are able to participate, as is anyone, which is why you can use it to do social goods that you admire. See: Newman's Own. In a "right wing" or a "left wing" economics, economic freedom is limited in one degree or another to the views of those who have power. Free Enterprise separates, as much as possible, economic activity from political outlook.
MrGp59 As Epstein has said in a different video, he usually puts people's protests about ethics down as "a placeholder for a real argument." More precisely, I think you mean, "I disagree with where Epstein's philosophy leads, and I have no way to break his arguments, ergo, I will impugn his character." It's very Progressive of you.
Wow, Richard Epstein sure is a sharp guy. Not someone I'd want to debate!
Would love to see Richard debate Elizabeth Warren on regulation.
"There might be some Republican we've never heard of who can come forward."
"God knows"
"I don't want to be outraged because it just makes your life shorter and less happy." Wise words.
I'd love to watch ALL presidential candidates debate with Richard Epstein.
the sharpest tool in the shed
I love watching these videos, thank you so much for taking the time to upload them. ☺
He was a law professor at age 26! He said that he has been a law professor for 45 years: at the time of this interview, he was age 71: do the math.
Required study. This is powerful, 100 per cent All American Common Sense.
40:48 - How to convince young, pro-Obama 'cool progressives' of how things really work.
31:00 brutal take down of Obama
I'm not a libertarian, but I thoroughly enjoy listening to Richard Epstein.
Fascinating mind indeed! Awesome ... best Uncommon Knowledge in a long time!! Well done!
Richard Epstein is 71?! I thought he was in his late 50's or early 60's!
Richard Epstein is to intellectualism what Raquel Welch is to sexuality.
I'd like to see a remake of "The Shawshank Redemption" in which it's a poster of Epstein on the wall instead of Welch.
+7beers They both don't look their age either.
42:22 "...there may be some Republican we've never heard of who can come forward." TRUMP!
+lorem ipsum I don't think that is who he had in mind, as he said someone under 55 who wasn't born in the lap of luxury...honestly the name that came to mind for me was Rubio...not that he is my favorite candidate...but that is who I thought of...
It's not just the subsidy - I know from sad personal experience. If you don't sign up in time, you are NOT ALLOWED to buy compliant insurance, and you are fined for not having it! The only way to avoid the fine is to go on Medicaid retroactively. This happened to me - I was forced to take Welfare (Medicaid) to avoid being fined!
+mzk1 Frightening isn't it?
Limited government is the first step eliminating the need for it altogether. This should be in the planning for future generations.
Epstein SLAYS Obama. 31:42
Imagine him on the Supreme Court.
I am speechless -almost; this man is one of two things! A brilliant ventriloquist and 'corrupter of our youth' or arguably the sharpest mind among those I've been exposed to. Since I distrust my reflex's I tip my hat, his next beer is on me!
+Anogoya Dagaati Like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E Williams, Richard Epstein was swept under the rug by the mainstream media. God I hate the Leftist media.
God help us! I don't have TV at home precisely for this reason. All the production is filtered through such myopic minds that I can barely endure nearly everything thats on there. I come to TH-cam because at least here I can choose my content. His prose is just unreal and the quality of his thinking in dissection of matters. Man! I could go one but I'd be preaching to the choir! Keep learning my friend!
Anogoya Dagaati Agree 100%.
That’s a quick mind for god’s sake! Thank you!
Wow! Thank you so much for such awesome interviews. I do hope Mr. Epstein makes it to the SOTUS.
1) Richard Epstein's brain belongs in a museum; 2) When Richard Epstein speaks Latin it sounds like he's speaking Yiddish which makes me want to hug him and never let go.
This guy talks so fast, I had to keep going back to get his points, super smart guy
Richard is brilliant.
Didn’t we already have a history in this country of no minimum wage? Isn’t that why we now have minimum-wage laws because it was seen that employers would all collectively not pay their employees and value them? The employees had no choice to go anywhere else because everywhere else all paid the same low wage because greedy people are trying to get rich anyway they can even off the backs of their workers. Hello HELLOOOOO !
Isn’t that why we had to create the laws because we already saw what happens when there are no laws of a minimum standard at the very least a minimum standard because they’ll do what they’re doing already in China and India and everywhere else pay as little as possible so they can get rich as quick as possible. This is one of the areas in the free market that government has to intervene in because of negative human traits .
Great show...thank you.
Right on the money about both Obama and Romney.
Dazzling intellectual flexibility!
Is there an update to this interview?
One of my favorite humans.
It is really interesting how people who are proponents of the raising the minimum wage pay no price themselves if they are wrong and gain no benefit if they are right.
41:52 Jeb still in. Cruz still in. Walker's out. Christie's out. Paul's out. Who else does he think of the current candidates is a Libertarian?
Any explanation of how Scalia and Kennedy reversed regarding the 8th circuit decision - Scalia allowing them to require homosexual marriage, and Kennedy saying no.
His voice cadence and inflection reminds me of the late great Steven J. Gould.
I think the first Scotus decision on ACA was activism, but not the second. Everyone knows the law was badly written, but it's public record to know what how it was advertised to function.
The intent was to create an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges.
What other laws should the executive unilaterally change if they don't have their intended effects?
Different parts of the law were written at different times. At the time the part that says "State" was written, a federal system was not thought to be necessary. But then they added one.
Just like the second amendment uses the militia to give an example of why you'd need the right to bear arms. Taken as a whole, and comparing what advertisers of the bill were saying at the time, it's clear how the law was supposed to work.
Wizmut
It seems to me that the whole concept of having separate state exchanges and allowing states to opt out was a compromise required to get enough votes to pass it. If circumstances have changed since then it's up to Congress to update the law but it's NOT up to the administration to re-write the thing unilaterally.
Have you listened to the comments of Jonathan Gruber on the matter? "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits"
So true!
The thing about gay marriage that bothers me is that marriage was setup to increase the success of child rearing so why should we extend the same benefits to couples who cannot have children is this special rights? Also im concerned that government will now try and interfere with gay peoples relationships as well through litigation and new laws. If the gay marriage is really deregulating relationships then it has my support.
+DirtyNewby You can, but the point is that it per the constitution, it should be done by vote at the state level, rather than government fiat....marriage is a power given to the states rather than the federal government...we live in a republic not an oligarchy...
Outstanding.
Very enlightening discussion and his Brooklyn accent and manner of speaking makes it seriously entertaining. I would love to see him in an actual debate. Reminds me of the way WFB Jr could skewer people with such verbosity and eloquence but in a different almost like a woody-allen style. In regards to the last bit about pres candidates, I get his point about Ted Cruz but I think Rand Paul has been every bit as acerbic(to use the same word) as Cruz is. I think what you're saying is neither of them are really ready for prime time yet, but I felt like you were saying Rand Paul is one step ahead of Cruz I see them more being at about equal level right now.
2:41 what does he mean that there will not be a return of capital becuase of competitive process?
DreamAboutSpace "excessive returns to capital". I will try my best to explain for you, DreamAboutSpace.
Capital has two definitions; a financial/accounting one, and an economics one.
1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash. (accounting/finance)
2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business and used in production. (economics)
essentially right now income inequality is arriving from an excessive return on capital, meaning wall street etc. is making boatloads of money off of financial assets etc. (that is atleast the narrative)
return on capital= profit
what Richard Epstein is alluding too is that when there is more competition for labour, capital, land etc, profits are reduced. the classic example is two salesmen offering lower and lower prices to a consumer.
it is in his opinion that in a freed, growing economy, the competition for everything expands and it reduces returns or investment.
essentially the competitive process will ensure there aren't excessive returns on capital.
is he correct? no idea i am no economist, but then again, neither is he.
hope I helped.
+DreamAboutSpace www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnofcapital.asp
This guy is smart.
Sorry, also very great on Obama.
Interesting...how come Epstein sounds and looks like Thomas Sowell? :P
There are a limited number of ways to rephrase the truth? It's like the Tolstoy quote, "All happy families are alike; all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way."
Nicely put.
wow. Well said
Identical copy of Thomas Sowell !
The rich man is not worried about inequality. That makes sense.
Rich guys talking about how I should be happy that I now earn $9.50/hour instead of $9.00/hour. While they have more than they could ever use. And we are supposed to trust the rich because? Trickle down tends to stick to the fingers of those above us.
Stephen Garfield You criticize these men's ideas while being too ignorant to even know that trickle down economics is entirely a strawman from the left. Looks like you drank the mainstream kool aid.
Further, who says either of them is rich?
Please move to Europe, you greedy prole, before you help the American left ruin the Republic even more than they already have.
Jak Kuhl Thank you, Jak. "Trickle down" was an invention of Ted Kennedy, I believe, who was a fount of awful ideas, and a generally rotten human being, which tells you something about the average Massachusetts voter.
In truth, capitalism has nothing to do with "trickle down." A capitalist puts their investment forward with no guarantee that he will see a return on the investment. Meanwhile, Stephen Garfield gets a paycheck every week. The capitalist can lose everything. Stephen is guaranteed what he has been able to negotiate.
In contrast, Progressive economics - where money is either taken from others, or conjured out of thin air - is poured down in the assumption that it will result in … well, nobody actually knows. Because the fact that you want something (demand-side) doesn't mean anyone will make it happen. In any event, there is no connection between those who spend money, and the responsibility for how productive that money is.
Jak Kuhl A million thumbs up.
+Stephen Garfield So you would rather earn $9 as long as the others get less? Thank you for explaining the current economy.
You're either young, useless or inexperienced if you only make minimum wage. I don't think I've ever worked for minimum wage in my life. Although, I did start my job as an intern getting paid nothing. Had there been a law against that I may have never even gotten the job in the first place. A good example of how it can potentially hurt people starting out in the labour market.
7:15
It amazes me that millions of Americans voted to ban gay marriage in this day and age.
At one point Epstein states that he's in favour of legalizing polygamy. Would you agree with that?
IN my opinion Richard is very IQ-sharp. But something is wrong in his attitude. Do you see it? I think he lacks solid ethics and intellectual honesty.
MrGp59 I think I ma going to need some proof of what you are saying. I have seen him debate with many other academics who hold him in the highest regards.
MrGp59 He has to be intellectually dishonest because the empirical data shows that Reaganomics doesn't work the way the right wing politicians claim it does.
There is a bizarre psychological phenomenon where a certain percentage of the population will refuse to change their ideas once consolidated, no matter how much evidence is given to prove they are wrong. The most bizarre part about this is that it's been observed that the more thorough and more comprehensive the evidence against their belief is, the more they will double down and refuse to change their stance.
This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one.
Lets agree that it does not work. So what do we do? Should we listen to Paul Krugman? Should we mandate that anything someone makes over a million dollars should be spread among the people? Should we move to a France style economic system?
L3opard123 "This explains why religion is dying a slow death rather than a quick one."
This could also explain why leftist economics is also bitterly clinging to life, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of its failure provided by the 20th century.
FTR, mercantilism is a "right wing" economic theory. Free Enterprise is free. Leftists are able to participate, as is anyone, which is why you can use it to do social goods that you admire. See: Newman's Own.
In a "right wing" or a "left wing" economics, economic freedom is limited in one degree or another to the views of those who have power. Free Enterprise separates, as much as possible, economic activity from political outlook.
MrGp59 As Epstein has said in a different video, he usually puts people's protests about ethics down as "a placeholder for a real argument."
More precisely, I think you mean, "I disagree with where Epstein's philosophy leads, and I have no way to break his arguments, ergo, I will impugn his character."
It's very Progressive of you.