@Loathomar Yeah, you're damn right, I do. Congress has been a problem from the start. I'm not saying we should disband it. But the Republic was NEVER meant to have a permanent political class. Charlie Rangel has been in gov't for 50 years. WTF? The least that should occur is term limits for Congress, just as the Presidency.
Richard Epstein is one of the best on law and Economics. If my professor, I'd need a recorder, he quotes and comments on anything faster than a rocket ship. I couldn't think of a better analogy.
@Loathomar I can't disagree with your assessment more. The first President set the two term precedent. This speaks volumes. Whatever the solution, career politicians are the problem.
Cutting taxes permanently doesn't automatically mean that people are going to spend more. People are quite capable of saving both a stimulus check and a tax refund.
He's a prime example of why we, as libertarians, are fighting a losing battle. Sure his economic theory is sound. I can agree with just about everything he said, but he's so cold. He lacks compassion and consideration for the human condition. Cut medicare and social security. Undo regulation, minimum wage, and civil rights. OK, how exactly are you going to sell that to the least fortunate amongst us if you come off as an elitist corporate tycoon?! You have to meet people were they are.
@ajcestrada A scientific method for allocating all resources without money or barter? This might work as a sci-fi plot or something, but there's no way we could implement anything like that. Human society is far too complicated to be managed like that. But I am curious... where are you getting this idea from?
Considering the results we have gotten from academic economists, I think the argument here between commenters about Epstein being qualified as an economist is a moot point - would it really be so bad to have someone with a broader view? Not that having a Congress full of lawyers has done anyone any good...
@canteluna was this comment directed to me? you must overestimate my understanding of the subject matter in question here. I know very little about political forces, etc. (and I guess I should point out that I believe most people who browse youtube videos don't know enough about these topics to make worthwhile contribution via comments). Anyway, this particular comment of yours makes perfect sense to me. I guess I sense you are a normal human being who can see through this clown.
"I don't stay awake @ night due to a guilty conscience." Great quote. Epstein should have been listened to. Americans would rather listen and vote to jingoistic; HOPE & CHANGE.
@Loathomar 1st, leading SAG presented him as a friend to labor, not a collectivist thereof. 2nd, he earned his position and preformed well as the leader of the conservative movement after Goldwater. He grew the economy, and Congress, which he did not control spent more than was taken in, what part of Congress will control the purse strings don't you understand?
... our resources, more competition from abroad, less of a technological advantage, and less of a cultural advantage. Our economy has less room to grow, and will therefore NEVER return to the dominance of the past. We just have to accept it and decide what kind of society we want to become... ACCEPT the fact that no matter what kind of tax policy we have, we will NEVER have the kind of growth we once had.
@captaindiesalot The founding fathers did not put any term limits in the constitution, the term limit for the President was not made until 1951 with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Much of our founding fathers where in the life time political class. Really, the thing that most needs to be changed is the gerrymandering in our system, that allows one party to permanently keep an congress seat with almost no political discords. Term limits for Congress may be good, but it was not "meant".
@TheProgressistViewer The US spends 4.2% of GPD on the military, but 23% of government spending is on military. I am not sure that spending 20% on the military would have us "sleeping in trailer parks" as much of the spending would be spent on American jobs. This is not to say it would help the economy in anyway, but it would not hurt as bad as you seem to believe.
All that bluster and the obvious place to cut is the Military. Bring the troops home, discharge most of them and go from there. 52% of GDP goes to a military that has a higher budget than the next 49 countries combined. But no, conservatives would rather babble about Medicare, entitlements, and other programs spending that won't matter a bit if the military budget isn't touched. Everything he has said is true but the literal elephant in the room is military spending. Cut that too.
@4lifejackhammer If you think getting a PhD is just a matter of "reading books" or "having a basic understanding" you should educate your self by reading anything. Having a PhD in a subject means you published meaningful work on the subject of study. But he is not someone working outside the system, being rejected meanly as a outside view. He is a college Professor. If he had an interest or desire to get an econ PhD, why wouldn't he? Do you think people at his school are stopping him... WTF?!?
@arcanekrusader Basically my point. If you are going to cut, cut everywhere. Leaving the military alone is a recipe for disaster and pretending otherwise is dumb.
@Amy31415 Regardless, he voiced a cogent defense of the Constitution. I'm not familiar with what you're saying about the 2nd Amendment, the NRA writes that he was the ONLY President to speak at their convention. He was the first and perhaps ONLY President to reverse years of Collectivism which negatively impacted the US. He's "idolized" because of the numerous speeches, writings, and positions relative to the Constitution and the uniqueness of America.
The real problem is that our economy once had so much room to grow, with fewer competitors, and so we flourished. I'm talking about the 1800's through the late 1990's... we had lots of new markets to expand into, we had an abundance of land and other natural resources, we had a technological advantage, and a cultural advantage - women and minorities in the workforce, and cheap labor in the form of recent immigrants. All of these conditions made growth inevitable. Now, we face constraints on..
@TheProgressistViewer This would depend on what budget expenditures are to be cut no? Doesn't the collective budget items being cut determine the overall value? If so, is it not therefore safe to say--as in all budget battles--that these type of expenditure fights rely on whose cutting (not merely reducing) the expenditures. There has to be some kind of brake on the spending overall, not just merely the pet programs of one coalition or another.
@ajcestrada the whole argument for it is that 1. "False scarcity" through the profit motive is the cause for all problems. 2. All resources are supposed to be the common heritage of all people, not merely a select few. The first concept ignores that there are plenty of things that are finite until people take an approach to create them, like more finished products or trees. It also ignores the possible skill required for such things.
"knock out strong civil rights laws, the family medical leave act--take out the minimum wage--it only gums things up." After he said that what was the point of talking to this lunatic.
Nick's interviews are sometimes indisputably brilliant, pearls one could even say. And this Epstein guy is hauntingly smart, need to dig up more of him... Damn you Reason, I need to work!!
i didn't criticize him for his policy views (for which there are obviously many dissenters including myself) only for his arrogance and pretentiousness. if you've been anywhere near academia you would know that your premise is begging the question and is not credible.
The great depression lasted longer in the united states than practically all other nations despite massive stimulus. The fed after having taken control on the currency choked the money supply in the US exacerbating the depression. Along with trade restrictions and tariffs.
@Loathomar well, what would an extra PhD earn him in money? He can only teach so many classes, write so many books, etc. in the time alloted. Yes, PhDs do require publishing works, but it is still granted by the universities. However, one doesn't need a PhD to be educated on the matter. Now, the social sciences (politics, law, geography, history, economics, etc.) are really tied in together. Just because his area of expertise is not economics, does not mean he is unknowledgeable about it.
@AtheistPatriot1 The fact of the matter is that we have an underclass that will suffer tremendously under Libertarian policies. That fact is the reason why we have so many problems advancing our economic policies. If we simply implement our policies without making some provisions for those who are dependent on the government we will start a civil war. The underclass will feel oppressed by a "tyrannical" government and will lash out in revolt. It has happened the world over.
@4zcompany See, I don't understand your argument. We haven't had a "right wing" economic structure for some decades, now. A Right Wing agenda calls for a smaller government, more reliance upon individual responsibility. The whole financial structure fell apart while the regulators watched. It's obvious that regulations don't work; to call this guy a "pseudo-intellectual," and say that we've already tried RW economics is false on the face of your argument, and in reality. Please elaborate.
@johnycannuk Well, the government is supposed to defend its citizens from foreign threats. On the other hand I don't know where in the constitution a "nanny" state is called for.
@captaindiesalot Congress may have "been a problem", but you can not reasonable claim that Reagan fixed that economy and Congress spent the money. Did Reagan fixed that economy with kind words? Hope? Positive thinking? The congress and president worked together on the economy and debt. If you want to give Reagan credit for the economy's growth, you have to give him blame for the national debt. You could also lay both on congress. Or say both get the blame and credit.
Basicly the entire first world has used Keynesian economics policy for about 100 years, and last 100 years where clearly the worst 100 years of economics we have seen in the last 2000 years right?... Oh wait.... Laissez-faire economics worked out great of those who coined the name, France in 1750, it took ~40 before people where starving to death and the Revolution began, which killed most of the rich and powerful, who got all the befits from Laissez-faire economics... until the end
@Exner83 Well that is just stupid. If he was "anti-Keynesian" and had a PhD from a outstanding school, I would not question his qualifications. But as he is a collage professor, I sure he would say he knows he is not qualified for the job of Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. He eduction, like all who have a PhD, is focused in a small field. He is surely welcome to have views on other fields, but he knows his focus and his focus is Law and not economics.
@CTSBeast You have a misconception about government. It has nothing to do with intelligence or even the best interests of the general populace-it's all about power.
This poor baby was neglected as as teen - - check out his teeth. No wonder he's so against universal health care. . . . he's afraid what the orthodontist will do when he gets his hands on him.
@Loathomar I "liked" your comment, because I think the point is forgotten quite often. So when I argue with my friends on the right, I almost always bring up the Nordic countries (to remind them about their *overall* tax rates). However, I also bring the Nordic countries up when I argue with my friends on the left, because these countries are geared for growth (with market friendly policies) in a way that I think my leftist friends overlook.
@teachme2fish But G.W. Bush, after failed businesses and doing a horrible 6 years as Texas Governor. Or Reagan's acting and 8 years and CA Governor. Acting really gets you ready to be the "Ruler of the Free World". All our Presidents are "in way over there heads", they deal, they have lots of advisors and a party "helping" them.
@Violent2aShadow Really, cutting taxes on an economic down turn will often have very little useful impact at all on small business. Taxes are not bases on gross sales but profit, most small business lose almost all profit during an economic down turn. Hiring people is a 100% tax deduction for businesses. The idea that if we lower taxes business will hire make no sense. Cutting taxes permanently change long term economics not short term.
There's more to it than that, if you re-invested the money you made it wouldn't be taxed for those periods of time you listed. These were great incentives in encouraging re-investment and growing businesses. With that said I'm not for using undue force or coercion. Some of these things still exist and are commonly viewed as loopholes, but are beneficial to many businesses to side step painful taxes which would reduce the amount of disposable income that could be reinvested and grow a business.
@AtheistPatriot1 It's mostly the excessive leeching from government employees that runs up the debt, but it pales in comparison to the cost of imperialism. No one wants to talk about the 400lb. gorilla in the room. Even IF the history of American wars was legitimate and decent there has to be a limit to what can be spent. If I buy a new car, yes I would want to insure it's value but it has to relate to the value of the car and my income. Are these things ever considered with defense?
@ajcestrada The whole reason currency was created was as a medium of exchange. Even if the universal medium lost its monopoly power, you would have new mediums in different areas. Now, I don't see a problem with that, but just pointing out that money is just an extension of barter designed for ease.
@AtheistPatriot1 Really? Sweden unemployment August 2010, 8.3%, US 9.6%. 1.3% difference. Manufacturing as a % of GDP; Sweden ~20%, US 14%. Either is not a heavy manufacture. Netherlands also has 14% manufacturing. So your "fact" are total crap, now you are left with "is a culture difference", which is really just your personal opinion. The agreement for a Nordic style welfare system is not that is creates wealth but that good system systems do not hurt the creation wealth.
Poor richard, you can see from his hisitation and reaction that he is forcing the words out of his mouth. No matter, him and barack were bodies, so he has the right critic him. But perhaps he was hesitant because of this "so called reporter's" mythological outlay. Note to reporter, consumer confidence is throught the roof. Corporations are making money hand over fist at the expense of main street. The only think left is for unemployment to dramatickly tick down. And that is already hapenining.
Oh, I forgot to add that flattering the egos and emotion of students at the expense of the development of their intelligence is a greater display of contempt toward them than aything I have written.
So he read the entire health care bill?? it's like 2000 pages...politrix, he has an agenda so he picks a small aspect of the bill that he dislikes...he's too focused on details...when is the economy ever perfectly "efficient"????
@Loathomar so the credentials he had to pay large sums of money for is somewhere else; does that make him unable to read books on economics? The idea of qualification is merely a paper from a place with respectable clout saying "he has shown he is educated in this area." Further, the tie-in of the social studies is very close; having a basic understanding of all of them (which he is demonstrating) is almost necessary to grasp completely a specific field.
@Loathomar yes, he could earn more money, but what would be the original cost of getting another PhD, how much more money would he earn. He is already teaching the link between law and economics; why waste time and money on a PhD that may end up not paying off compared to another book, or showing up in an interview. Simply asserting he has the time ignores the opportunity cost of doing everything else.
You have to meet people where they are. You cannot just walk up to a bunch of people who are dependent on the government and say "Sorry! No more government for you because your philosophical position is illogical." They are dependent, so you'd basically through them out on the street. Then we'll have to deal with all manner of social discord. You have to present this stuff in a way that doesn't threaten their ability to survive.
@alvincay100 I thought it also didn't call for a standing army either. I don't disagree with anything Epstein said. He is right. But the glaring lack of targeting military budgets is just stupid. Those 49 other countries include Russia, France Britain and the other nuclear powers. If they can defend their citizens without spending even close to what the US does, than so can the US. Lets face it, most military spending is nothing more than corporate welfare for Boeing, Northrup Gruman etc
@ajcestrada If a method not requiring force could be found to facilitate the voluntary allocation of resources, then go for it. But, unlike the other sciences, social science cannot be truly tested by the scientific method. Society is far too complex; there is no control.
@arcanekrusader I gave you a thumbs up, we don't need a standing army. Which the Constitution says we aren't allowed to have, but we are allowed, and must have, a naval fleet to defend our coasts, ie Coast Guard, and Boarder Patrol would be nice. The navy is has the marines which gives us ground troops if needed. Each state maintains it's own Militia/National Guard, which can be called up in times of war.
also Obama is not a socialist his health care bill was a republican one form the 70s, and our most socialist president Franklin d Roosevelt who gave us social security got us out of the great depression by spending lots and lots of money on stimulus.
We already pay the lowest taxes in the history of this country. In the 1950's and 1960's if you made over $400,000/annually you paid over 90% taxes on it. Today its down to 35%. And guess what, our economy hasn't been growing anything close to the tax rates back then. You probably think I'm lying. Educate yourself. I'm not saying more taxes is the answer, but clearly the low taxes we pay now are the not the reason that the economy isn't performing well. It's not "stifling" anything.
@4lifejackhammer earning him a PhD could earn him extra money, CATO could pay him more, he could write a book on work, consult on econ. You are right that he "only has so much time" and his degrees, teaching and his required work in his field, he has enough time to get as much education as needed for a PhD, and has all his own idea for one, but decide he doesn't want one? I think not. I think you are full of crap and you know it.
You really don't understand what pretentious means. Epstein doe not have to put on false airs he is rather accomplished. I have been in academia. In fact I was at U Chicago when both Epstein and Obama were there. And I can assure you that there is lively and respectful debate. Epstein has provocative opinions, but he was never arrogant in a debate setting. You, on the other hand, have muddled reasoning and a tenuous grasp on the terminology you are attempting to employ. It's rather funny.
@TheProgressistViewer Well, Keynesian economics prove that point very well. There are many other countries with governments far far larger as a %, then the US that are doing very well. I did not say, "it would help" just that you are far overstating the damage it would do if it we spent 20% in stead of 4% on military. It would likely cost of 4-8% of our GDP, depending on how the money was spent on the military. A massive increase in R&D and personal, may cost us only 4%.
Mr. Epstein spent a lot of time comparing the legality of acts with the US Constitution, which is why I'm very surprised and disappointed that this video's description violates that part of the Constitution key to the Constitution's existence (see Federalist Papers 68, Alexander Hamilton: "so important an agency in the administration of the government;" more so, reference the Constitution itself), as the occupation or usurpation of the Office of President therefore voids a key component of our republican form of government, which is guaranteed only by the People's compliance with Article 4, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government." Treason is the support of that enemy of the States who threatens that guarantee (Art. 3, Sec. 3). A usurper of the Office of President is the enemy of the States. Calling Obama "President" is treason. - John Freeman
To second Mr. Epstein's point about continual discourse, I HIGHLY recommend every libertarian listen to the Block-Epstein debate. You can download for free on iTunes in the Mises Institute's iTunesU section. I agree with Dr. Block mostly - for the sole reason of Mr. Epstein's logic (paraphrased) less government is more production. As they say, I used to be a minarchist but I ran out of excuses. #anarchy
@AtheistPatriot1 Clearly high Welfare = economic crash, that is why we see the total collapse of the Nordic countries who all have the world larger welfare systems. Denmark, Norway , Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands are all getting bailed out... Oh wait, they are not. They counties have some of the highest standard of living, great GDP/capita, very low poverty and economies that are doing very well, comparatively. They are the countries with the worlds top tax rates...
Hmm.. I sort of want the best professors from the top 5 school to form a unit to govern this country. To live under some fools is so unfair to our professors...
@africanflower84 Sweet zombie jesus! A libertarian who get's it! This is why I'm not a libertarian though, but it would be great if others understood that fundamental point you raise. I don't believe using only economics will ever get us anywhere better, especially the broken economic systems we've become accustomed to.
@captaindiesalot LOL, I love it. He grew the economy, but Congress control spending. You want to give him all the credit but none of the blame, it is funny.
@captaindiesalot Reagan was always a good speech maker, but that is about it. SAG president is always an actor. California likes to elect actors that have no qualifications to run the state, ei the Govenator. But clearly you believe in Reagan policy entirely, like amnesty for all illegals? Or increasing federal spending (~2% higher then the 40 year average as a % of GDP)? Or near doubling national debt as a % of GDP? Or illegally selling of arms to Iran? Ya...
@SturmKorps And @Johnycannuk I think both of you are wrong you are looking at budgets not percentages of GDP. I believe this is where Johnycannuk came up with the 54% figure, warresisters(dot)org/pages/piechart(dot)htm The flyer explains why their calculations differ from the official USA released charts.
@carcabe Oh, so a hotel maid with three children, who has to work nights at the 7-11, and still has no money to buy a house or invest in a retirement fund, the less we pay her, the better the chance, she'll suddenly get a law degree or an MBA? I didn't know it worked like, just like a miracle. And here I was thinking that everyone that works ought to paid enough to live on. Silly me!
@TinFoilHatLeague E's initial comments on Obama (the lure for this video) make him (E) appear anything but credible or reasonable. Criticizing Obama for having "unbound confidence in himself," seems odd coming from this guy. Have you ever heard someone pontificate with such unbound confidence? He goes on to criticize Obama for not participating in faculty discourse in order to benefit, apparently, from E's wisdom. Then, w/o proof claims O's ideas are set in concrete. & E's aren't? Laughable!
I would be great for the U.S. with this person on the Supreme Court.
Love this guy. The most succinct, calmest, least hyperbole, best 12 minutes of connecting the dots I have heard.
What a mind. A truly beautiful mind. This guy needs to be running our government, not the politicians.
I will admit that I clicked this thinking it was a different Epstein
@Loathomar
Yeah, you're damn right, I do. Congress has been a problem from the start. I'm not saying we should disband it. But the Republic was NEVER meant to have a permanent political class. Charlie Rangel has been in gov't for 50 years. WTF? The least that should occur is term limits for Congress, just as the Presidency.
Richard Epstein is one of the best on law and Economics. If my professor, I'd need a recorder, he quotes and comments on anything faster than a rocket ship. I couldn't think of a better analogy.
He is not an Economist,supposedly good law professor. But in the long run Obama proved Epstein theories wrong
This is by far the best Reason TV that I have watched. Thank you Reason.
This dude is so fucking intelligent. He just shrunk my ego by 3 feet.
He didn't expound on the flat tax idea, but it's VERY sad that it's not seen by more people as a fair way to collect revenues.
@Loathomar
I can't disagree with your assessment more. The first President set the two term precedent. This speaks volumes. Whatever the solution, career politicians are the problem.
Epstein should be on more often. He is an intellectual heavyweight
Epstein is one of the great economic minds
Cutting taxes permanently doesn't automatically mean that people are going to spend more. People are quite capable of saving both a stimulus check and a tax refund.
Richard is the master teacher! Thanks Reason
A quick and brilliant mind
What is. the brilliance about his theory rantings. After Obama's term obama proved him wrong
He's a prime example of why we, as libertarians, are fighting a losing battle. Sure his economic theory is sound. I can agree with just about everything he said, but he's so cold. He lacks compassion and consideration for the human condition.
Cut medicare and social security. Undo regulation, minimum wage, and civil rights. OK, how exactly are you going to sell that to the least fortunate amongst us if you come off as an elitist corporate tycoon?! You have to meet people were they are.
@ajcestrada A scientific method for allocating all resources without money or barter? This might work as a sci-fi plot or something, but there's no way we could implement anything like that. Human society is far too complicated to be managed like that.
But I am curious... where are you getting this idea from?
What were his SAT and LSAT scores? Why are they still secret?
D Storm protected by affirmative action?
If you ask Epstein his opinion on the Federal Reserve, he would agree with abolishing the Fed.
Considering the results we have gotten from academic economists, I think the argument here between commenters about Epstein being qualified as an economist is a moot point - would it really be so bad to have someone with a broader view? Not that having a Congress full of lawyers has done anyone any good...
@canteluna was this comment directed to me? you must overestimate my understanding of the subject matter in question here. I know very little about political forces, etc. (and I guess I should point out that I believe most people who browse youtube videos don't know enough about these topics to make worthwhile contribution via comments). Anyway, this particular comment of yours makes perfect sense to me. I guess I sense you are a normal human being who can see through this clown.
If Epstein was a woman and a lot better looking, she would be close to my ideal.
Epstein, you're my new man crush.
"I don't stay awake @ night due to a guilty conscience." Great quote.
Epstein should have been listened to.
Americans would rather listen and vote to jingoistic; HOPE & CHANGE.
I believe the supreme court struck down that portion of the bill.
@Loathomar
1st, leading SAG presented him as a friend to labor, not a collectivist thereof. 2nd, he earned his position and preformed well as the leader of the conservative movement after Goldwater.
He grew the economy, and Congress, which he did not control spent more than was taken in, what part of Congress will control the purse strings don't you understand?
... our resources, more competition from abroad, less of a technological advantage, and less of a cultural advantage. Our economy has less room to grow, and will therefore NEVER return to the dominance of the past. We just have to accept it and decide what kind of society we want to become... ACCEPT the fact that no matter what kind of tax policy we have, we will NEVER have the kind of growth we once had.
Man, this guy knows his stuff.
@captaindiesalot The founding fathers did not put any term limits in the constitution, the term limit for the President was not made until 1951 with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Much of our founding fathers where in the life time political class. Really, the thing that most needs to be changed is the gerrymandering in our system, that allows one party to permanently keep an congress seat with almost no political discords. Term limits for Congress may be good, but it was not "meant".
@TheProgressistViewer The US spends 4.2% of GPD on the military, but 23% of government spending is on military. I am not sure that spending 20% on the military would have us "sleeping in trailer parks" as much of the spending would be spent on American jobs. This is not to say it would help the economy in anyway, but it would not hurt as bad as you seem to believe.
All that bluster and the obvious place to cut is the Military. Bring the troops home, discharge most of them and go from there.
52% of GDP goes to a military that has a higher budget than the next 49 countries combined.
But no, conservatives would rather babble about Medicare, entitlements, and other programs spending that won't matter a bit if the military budget isn't touched.
Everything he has said is true but the literal elephant in the room is military spending. Cut that too.
Good as far as it went. But where was the critique of the horrendous spending on so-called defense and homeland security?
@4lifejackhammer If you think getting a PhD is just a matter of "reading books" or "having a basic understanding" you should educate your self by reading anything. Having a PhD in a subject means you published meaningful work on the subject of study. But he is not someone working outside the system, being rejected meanly as a outside view. He is a college Professor. If he had an interest or desire to get an econ PhD, why wouldn't he? Do you think people at his school are stopping him... WTF?!?
@arcanekrusader Basically my point. If you are going to cut, cut everywhere. Leaving the military alone is a recipe for disaster and pretending otherwise is dumb.
@Amy31415
Regardless, he voiced a cogent defense of the Constitution. I'm not familiar with what you're saying about the 2nd Amendment, the NRA writes that he was the ONLY President to speak at their convention.
He was the first and perhaps ONLY President to reverse years of Collectivism which negatively impacted the US. He's "idolized" because of the numerous speeches, writings, and positions relative to the Constitution and the uniqueness of America.
The real problem is that our economy once had so much room to grow, with fewer competitors, and so we flourished. I'm talking about the 1800's through the late 1990's... we had lots of new markets to expand into, we had an abundance of land and other natural resources, we had a technological advantage, and a cultural advantage - women and minorities in the workforce, and cheap labor in the form of recent immigrants. All of these conditions made growth inevitable. Now, we face constraints on..
@TheProgressistViewer This would depend on what budget expenditures are to be cut no? Doesn't the collective budget items being cut determine the overall value? If so, is it not therefore safe to say--as in all budget battles--that these type of expenditure fights rely on whose cutting (not merely reducing) the expenditures. There has to be some kind of brake on the spending overall, not just merely the pet programs of one coalition or another.
Very smart interview. I really liked the answer to the last question.
@ajcestrada the whole argument for it is that
1. "False scarcity" through the profit motive is the cause for all problems.
2. All resources are supposed to be the common heritage of all people, not merely a select few.
The first concept ignores that there are plenty of things that are finite until people take an approach to create them, like more finished products or trees.
It also ignores the possible skill required for such things.
"knock out strong civil rights laws, the family medical leave act--take out the minimum wage--it only gums things up."
After he said that what was the point of talking to this lunatic.
Nick's interviews are sometimes indisputably brilliant, pearls one could even say. And this Epstein guy is hauntingly smart, need to dig up more of him... Damn you Reason, I need to work!!
i didn't criticize him for his policy views (for which there are obviously many dissenters including myself) only for his arrogance and pretentiousness.
if you've been anywhere near academia you would know that your premise is begging the question and is not credible.
The great depression lasted longer in the united states than practically all other nations despite massive stimulus.
The fed after having taken control on the currency choked the money supply in the US exacerbating the depression. Along with trade restrictions and tariffs.
This man is smarter then Obama who is not smarter then a grade two student.
Epstein is a whip, superb mental acumen.
0:46-1:24
@Loathomar well, what would an extra PhD earn him in money? He can only teach so many classes, write so many books, etc. in the time alloted. Yes, PhDs do require publishing works, but it is still granted by the universities. However, one doesn't need a PhD to be educated on the matter. Now, the social sciences (politics, law, geography, history, economics, etc.) are really tied in together. Just because his area of expertise is not economics, does not mean he is unknowledgeable about it.
@AtheistPatriot1 The fact of the matter is that we have an underclass that will suffer tremendously under Libertarian policies. That fact is the reason why we have so many problems advancing our economic policies.
If we simply implement our policies without making some provisions for those who are dependent on the government we will start a civil war. The underclass will feel oppressed by a "tyrannical" government and will lash out in revolt. It has happened the world over.
@4zcompany
See, I don't understand your argument. We haven't had a "right wing" economic structure for some decades, now. A Right Wing agenda calls for a smaller government, more reliance upon individual responsibility. The whole financial structure fell apart while the regulators watched. It's obvious that regulations don't work; to call this guy a "pseudo-intellectual," and say that we've already tried RW economics is false on the face of your argument, and in reality. Please elaborate.
@johnycannuk Well, the government is supposed to defend its citizens from foreign threats. On the other hand I don't know where in the constitution a "nanny" state is called for.
If Obama watched this, he wouldn't know Epstein is debasing him. That's how smart this guy is
@captaindiesalot Congress may have "been a problem", but you can not reasonable claim that Reagan fixed that economy and Congress spent the money. Did Reagan fixed that economy with kind words? Hope? Positive thinking? The congress and president worked together on the economy and debt. If you want to give Reagan credit for the economy's growth, you have to give him blame for the national debt. You could also lay both on congress. Or say both get the blame and credit.
Basicly the entire first world has used Keynesian economics policy for about 100 years, and last 100 years where clearly the worst 100 years of economics we have seen in the last 2000 years right?... Oh wait.... Laissez-faire economics worked out great of those who coined the name, France in 1750, it took ~40 before people where starving to death and the Revolution began, which killed most of the rich and powerful, who got all the befits from Laissez-faire economics... until the end
Libertarian legal scholars are awesome
@Exner83 Well that is just stupid. If he was "anti-Keynesian" and had a PhD from a outstanding school, I would not question his qualifications. But as he is a collage professor, I sure he would say he knows he is not qualified for the job of Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. He eduction, like all who have a PhD, is focused in a small field. He is surely welcome to have views on other fields, but he knows his focus and his focus is Law and not economics.
@CTSBeast You have a misconception about government. It has nothing to do with intelligence or even the best interests of the general populace-it's all about power.
This poor baby was neglected as as teen - - check out his teeth. No wonder he's so against universal health care. . . . he's afraid what the orthodontist will do when he gets his hands on him.
What a joke of a channel
@Loathomar I "liked" your comment, because I think the point is forgotten quite often. So when I argue with my friends on the right, I almost always bring up the Nordic countries (to remind them about their *overall* tax rates). However, I also bring the Nordic countries up when I argue with my friends on the left, because these countries are geared for growth (with market friendly policies) in a way that I think my leftist friends overlook.
How come no one is talking about War and the Federal Reserve?
@teachme2fish But G.W. Bush, after failed businesses and doing a horrible 6 years as Texas Governor. Or Reagan's acting and 8 years and CA Governor. Acting really gets you ready to be the "Ruler of the Free World". All our Presidents are "in way over there heads", they deal, they have lots of advisors and a party "helping" them.
@Violent2aShadow Really, cutting taxes on an economic down turn will often have very little useful impact at all on small business. Taxes are not bases on gross sales but profit, most small business lose almost all profit during an economic down turn. Hiring people is a 100% tax deduction for businesses. The idea that if we lower taxes business will hire make no sense. Cutting taxes permanently change long term economics not short term.
@4zcompany "The financial structure fell apart because of a lack of regulations" Delusion.
There's more to it than that, if you re-invested the money you made it wouldn't be taxed for those periods of time you listed. These were great incentives in encouraging re-investment and growing businesses. With that said I'm not for using undue force or coercion. Some of these things still exist and are commonly viewed as loopholes, but are beneficial to many businesses to side step painful taxes which would reduce the amount of disposable income that could be reinvested and grow a business.
@ajcestrada So how do you allocate resources without a medium of exchange or prices?
@AtheistPatriot1 It's mostly the excessive leeching from government employees that runs up the debt, but it pales in comparison to the cost of imperialism. No one wants to talk about the 400lb. gorilla in the room. Even IF the history of American wars was legitimate and decent there has to be a limit to what can be spent. If I buy a new car, yes I would want to insure it's value but it has to relate to the value of the car and my income. Are these things ever considered with defense?
@ajcestrada The whole reason currency was created was as a medium of exchange. Even if the universal medium lost its monopoly power, you would have new mediums in different areas. Now, I don't see a problem with that, but just pointing out that money is just an extension of barter designed for ease.
That's good. At least one successful Jew isn't guilty.
Great Interview!
Thought Obama did not pass the Bar.
@AtheistPatriot1 Really? Sweden unemployment August 2010, 8.3%, US 9.6%. 1.3% difference. Manufacturing as a % of GDP; Sweden ~20%, US 14%. Either is not a heavy manufacture. Netherlands also has 14% manufacturing. So your "fact" are total crap, now you are left with "is a culture difference", which is really just your personal opinion. The agreement for a Nordic style welfare system is not that is creates wealth but that good system systems do not hurt the creation wealth.
That guy is a good fucking speaker. Holy shit.
Yup!!
Poor richard, you can see from his hisitation and reaction that he is forcing the words out of his mouth. No matter, him and barack were bodies, so he has the right critic him. But perhaps he was hesitant because of this "so called reporter's" mythological outlay. Note to reporter, consumer confidence is throught the roof. Corporations are making money hand over fist at the expense of main street. The only think left is for unemployment to dramatickly tick down. And that is already hapenining.
Oh, I forgot to add that flattering the egos and emotion of students at the expense of the development of their intelligence is a greater display of contempt toward them than aything I have written.
So he read the entire health care bill?? it's like 2000 pages...politrix, he has an agenda so he picks a small aspect of the bill that he dislikes...he's too focused on details...when is the economy ever perfectly "efficient"????
"he's too focused on details" - The devil is in the details (somewhere in that 2000 pages of legislative crap)
I wouldn't doubt if he did. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.
It's not taking sides though. He's stating the truth.
lol at his math: going from 0.47 to 0.07 is not "a 40% loss,' Richard
@Loathomar so the credentials he had to pay large sums of money for is somewhere else; does that make him unable to read books on economics? The idea of qualification is merely a paper from a place with respectable clout saying "he has shown he is educated in this area." Further, the tie-in of the social studies is very close; having a basic understanding of all of them (which he is demonstrating) is almost necessary to grasp completely a specific field.
@Loathomar yes, he could earn more money, but what would be the original cost of getting another PhD, how much more money would he earn. He is already teaching the link between law and economics; why waste time and money on a PhD that may end up not paying off compared to another book, or showing up in an interview. Simply asserting he has the time ignores the opportunity cost of doing everything else.
You have to meet people where they are. You cannot just walk up to a bunch of people who are dependent on the government and say "Sorry! No more government for you because your philosophical position is illogical."
They are dependent, so you'd basically through them out on the street. Then we'll have to deal with all manner of social discord. You have to present this stuff in a way that doesn't threaten their ability to survive.
@johnycannuk Nobody's going to invade america and america doesn't need to go to war, so they don't need a standing army.
@alvincay100 I thought it also didn't call for a standing army either. I don't disagree with anything Epstein said. He is right. But the glaring lack of targeting military budgets is just stupid.
Those 49 other countries include Russia, France Britain and the other nuclear powers. If they can defend their citizens without spending even close to what the US does, than so can the US.
Lets face it, most military spending is nothing more than corporate welfare for Boeing, Northrup Gruman etc
@ajcestrada If a method not requiring force could be found to facilitate the voluntary allocation of resources, then go for it. But, unlike the other sciences, social science cannot be truly tested by the scientific method. Society is far too complex; there is no control.
@arcanekrusader I gave you a thumbs up, we don't need a standing army. Which the Constitution says we aren't allowed to have, but we are allowed, and must have, a naval fleet to defend our coasts, ie Coast Guard, and Boarder Patrol would be nice. The navy is has the marines which gives us ground troops if needed. Each state maintains it's own Militia/National Guard, which can be called up in times of war.
also Obama is not a socialist his health care bill was a republican one form the 70s, and our most socialist president Franklin d Roosevelt who gave us social security got us out of the great depression by spending lots and lots of money on stimulus.
We already pay the lowest taxes in the history of this country. In the 1950's and 1960's if you made over $400,000/annually you paid over 90% taxes on it. Today its down to 35%. And guess what, our economy hasn't been growing anything close to the tax rates back then. You probably think I'm lying. Educate yourself. I'm not saying more taxes is the answer, but clearly the low taxes we pay now are the not the reason that the economy isn't performing well. It's not "stifling" anything.
@4lifejackhammer earning him a PhD could earn him extra money, CATO could pay him more, he could write a book on work, consult on econ. You are right that he "only has so much time" and his degrees, teaching and his required work in his field, he has enough time to get as much education as needed for a PhD, and has all his own idea for one, but decide he doesn't want one? I think not. I think you are full of crap and you know it.
You really don't understand what pretentious means. Epstein doe not have to put on false airs he is rather accomplished. I have been in academia. In fact I was at U Chicago when both Epstein and Obama were there. And I can assure you that there is lively and respectful debate. Epstein has provocative opinions, but he was never arrogant in a debate setting. You, on the other hand, have muddled reasoning and a tenuous grasp on the terminology you are attempting to employ. It's rather funny.
What was Obama like in UChicago?
@TheProgressistViewer Well, Keynesian economics prove that point very well. There are many other countries with governments far far larger as a %, then the US that are doing very well. I did not say, "it would help" just that you are far overstating the damage it would do if it we spent 20% in stead of 4% on military. It would likely cost of 4-8% of our GDP, depending on how the money was spent on the military. A massive increase in R&D and personal, may cost us only 4%.
Mr. Epstein spent a lot of time comparing the legality of acts with the US Constitution, which is why I'm very surprised and disappointed that this video's description violates that part of the Constitution key to the Constitution's existence (see Federalist Papers 68, Alexander Hamilton: "so important an agency in the administration of the government;" more so, reference the Constitution itself), as the occupation or usurpation of the Office of President therefore voids a key component of our republican form of government, which is guaranteed only by the People's compliance with Article 4, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government." Treason is the support of that enemy of the States who threatens that guarantee (Art. 3, Sec. 3). A usurper of the Office of President is the enemy of the States. Calling Obama "President" is treason. - John Freeman
Agreed.
To second Mr. Epstein's point about continual discourse, I HIGHLY recommend every libertarian listen to the Block-Epstein debate. You can download for free on iTunes in the Mises Institute's iTunesU section. I agree with Dr. Block mostly - for the sole reason of Mr. Epstein's logic (paraphrased) less government is more production. As they say, I used to be a minarchist but I ran out of excuses. #anarchy
@4zcompany There's no such thing as right-wing left-wing. They're all the same.
@AtheistPatriot1 Clearly high Welfare = economic crash, that is why we see the total collapse of the Nordic countries who all have the world larger welfare systems. Denmark, Norway , Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands are all getting bailed out... Oh wait, they are not. They counties have some of the highest standard of living, great GDP/capita, very low poverty and economies that are doing very well, comparatively. They are the countries with the worlds top tax rates...
Hmm.. I sort of want the best professors from the top 5 school to form a unit to govern this country. To live under some fools is so unfair to our professors...
A willing 🐑
@africanflower84 Sweet zombie jesus! A libertarian who get's it! This is why I'm not a libertarian though, but it would be great if others understood that fundamental point you raise. I don't believe using only economics will ever get us anywhere better, especially the broken economic systems we've become accustomed to.
@captaindiesalot LOL, I love it. He grew the economy, but Congress control spending. You want to give him all the credit but none of the blame, it is funny.
@captaindiesalot Reagan was always a good speech maker, but that is about it. SAG president is always an actor. California likes to elect actors that have no qualifications to run the state, ei the Govenator. But clearly you believe in Reagan policy entirely, like amnesty for all illegals? Or increasing federal spending (~2% higher then the 40 year average as a % of GDP)? Or near doubling national debt as a % of GDP? Or illegally selling of arms to Iran? Ya...
Now I see why you are you so preoccupied with the concept of pedantry .
Your reply is embarrassing, I would delete it personally .
@SturmKorps And @Johnycannuk I think both of you are wrong you are looking at budgets not percentages of GDP. I believe this is where Johnycannuk came up with the 54% figure, warresisters(dot)org/pages/piechart(dot)htm The flyer explains why their calculations differ from the official USA released charts.
And its as simple as that throw abunch of money at people in hard times without better outlook and people will pay down bills or save.
@carcabe Oh, so a hotel maid with three children, who has to work nights at the 7-11, and still has no money to buy a house or invest in a retirement fund, the less we pay her, the better the chance, she'll suddenly get a law degree or an MBA? I didn't know it worked like, just like a miracle. And here I was thinking that everyone that works ought to paid enough to live on. Silly me!
@LordKaisen
She is? Seriously?
I KNEW it!
Alex Jones...Eat your heart out.
@TinFoilHatLeague E's initial comments on Obama (the lure for this video) make him (E) appear anything but credible or reasonable. Criticizing Obama for having "unbound confidence in himself," seems odd coming from this guy. Have you ever heard someone pontificate with such unbound confidence? He goes on to criticize Obama for not participating in faculty discourse in order to benefit, apparently, from E's wisdom. Then, w/o proof claims O's ideas are set in concrete. & E's aren't? Laughable!
Well this didn't age very well
Was Richard Epstein related to Jeffery Epstein?
No. Epstein is a common last name of people with Jewish heritage.
Thank you, Will.