Aside from suggesting the earned-income tax credit be reformed, Brooks appeared to have no substantive ideas about how to address the endemic problems in the U.S. economy. After absolving the elites of any responsibility associated with their hugely disproportionate accumulation of wealth, he just spouted a lot of empty platitudes and insipid free market nostrums.
Conservatives love talking about compassion to ease their conscience and feel good but they do Not like taking compassion beyond a theoretical level to put it into practice
When I worked at Walmart in the 90s the store manager extolled the benefits of bringing in his own pens from home instead of charging them to the store.
damn... im used to bill's guests going deeper than republican or democratic talking points. we've all heard the libertarian faith based economic doctrine before...
I can't help but think this guy has a clue what he's protecting and/or excluding in his position. He's being paid by the very entities who help to perpetuate the world's current economic state. I'm a bit disappointed that Mr. Moyers didn't ask about proposals beyond earned income tax credits. He mentioned several times that he had multiple ideas, I would have liked to hear them. But let's not forget that some companies are paying a living wage and still producing record profits, so his position that employers like Wal Mart can't make a profit and pay living wages to keep their employees off of public assistance is preposterous and has been debunked myriad times. In a perfect world, a reasonable mind understands that the government is US, and government regulation simply reflects a marketplace The People choose. Government is necessary because the desire of the desperately poor to buy the cheapest product (many times to their own demise, a la Wal Mart and other self-absorbed criminals) will trump doing the right thing almost every time. Notice I said "in a perfect world", because in its current state, the government has become an inefficient, corrupt entity, beholden to those who fund re-election campaigns, and can afford to grease the palms of their representatives in return for face time. It's evident in the lack of response to the financial meltdown of 2008. Reform has been lukewarm. The rules have changed some, but not enough to prevent greed from toppling the market again and again. Bailouts were offered with no strings attached. Common sense has taken its leave in the Capital, and the everyman is too busy worrying about his next meal to pay attention or understand. So that is where we are. The right hates government because it traditionally places limits on rampant greed in favor of the good of The Many. The left hates government because it is failing in those duties right now, and to expect representatives to vote themselves less power, money, or influence, is like asking Albert Pujols to get base hits instead of home runs. Home runs are fun and fire up the fans, but base hits win the game. We're screwed.
I get that this guy has a belief system and I applaud him for approaching the conversation in a reasonable way, but I just don't buy what he is selling. His underlying premise presents everyone as subservient to the "market". Most nations (outside of USA) don't subscribe to this dogma. Capitalism can be great, but it needs checks and balances, most often provided by the citizens, in the form of the Government.
OK, at 10:38, this is the greatest display of verbal political jujitsu I've ever seen. This guy is good because he just said in a very affable way what Ronald Reagan said lo so many years ago, "Government is the problem."
Ok I should stop complaining. For those interested here's the link to the rest of the interview: billmoyers.com/2014/07/25/web-extra-the-conscience-of-a-compassionate-conservative/
10:04 Sure you can. Government can never run out of money because they are the issuer of that money. You just need the available human and physical resources, which you do. And no, "printing" money does not have a direct connection to inflation. The quantity theory of money by Milton Friedman has been widely disproved. What matters for the value of money in an economy is aggregate demand.
Since Mr. Brooke wants us all to be moral nice people who don't cheat each other, without government interaction, such as raising the minimum wage, then which theology will he impose on us? Buddism?
When I first listened to this on #Stitcher I was impressed that the two men did try to find some common ground. Let's give some credit. We all need to be doing that, talking to those outside our comfort zone.
I finally watched the interview of Brooke on my DVR. Here is my problem with his thinking. It ALL rests on the premise that raising the minimum wage will result in higher unemployment. Yet, my own studies indicate exactly the opposite is true, and here is why. The world, and the US, are still mired in a "Demand Recession." The problem is not that there isn't enough money or that there isn't the ability to meet demand. The problem is that there isn't enough demand for goods and services to spur the economy. The reason there isn't sufficient demand is that the middle class is stressed and the working lower income class isn't receiving enough wages to increase their spending. Yes, some jobs will disappear if wages are forced upwards, but those will be replaced by higher paying jobs as demand for goods and services increases. Further, it is the moral thing to do. People should not be working for less than a living wage. Also, the government should not be supporting people who are working full time. While it is true increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit will have a stimulative effect on the economy as a whole, it makes less sense that the government should be supplementing incomes of the poor working class in order to line the pockets of the ownership class. Corporations like Walmart and McDonalds should pay their workers, and not force the federal government to supplement their incomes.
It's hardly surprising so many people have tuned out, although this could have been one way to bring another sampling of the gnarled and barbaric credo espoused by the most selfish psychopaths on Earth, in a charmingly hypocritical way, courtesy of an apologist. I like Mr. Moyers, but sometimes the blandness of what passes for outrage is enough to make me want to take up drinking and playing bridge. It doesn't take much of a web search to discover a virulent undercurrent of frustration and fury at how the crass lying and manipulation used by all aspirants save a few to public office. H.L. Mencken described our system best a century ago and it hasn't changed one whit since.
Bill, I humbly suggest that any conversations with economic experts begin with the following questions just to keep things out in the open from the start. Before the great depression where were you and what were you thinking? Do you believe Reaganomics was the cause of the great depression?
I think that we need more Republicans like him and they must be willing to be honest and NOT concerned about pandering to campaign donors. However, note that he didn't answer the question as to why is capital valued more than labor. According to his "free market" ideology, those taxed higher, workers, are subsidizing the gains of capital and that must end. Also, the fact that Walmart can pay their workers so little is due to the free market, low skilled workers competing for low skill jobs, the American tax payers subsidize the profits of Walmart by supporting their workers with social programs. This must end. Understand this, the extensive middle class as we've known it was due entirely to the application of the income tax and then the application of high upper marginal tax rates; The free market had nothing to do with the growth of the middle class until government created its environment through tax policy. "Compassionate conservatism" is a good try, but misses the mark because it is based on the "free market" and the "free market" has never solved a problem, problems are solved by political will.
Aside from suggesting the earned-income tax credit be reformed, Brooks appeared to have no substantive ideas about how to address the endemic problems in the U.S. economy. After absolving the elites of any responsibility associated with their hugely disproportionate accumulation of wealth, he just spouted a lot of empty platitudes and insipid free market nostrums.
Brooks is just trying to get more republicans elected.
rob sprowl Exactly. That's the new mission of the Heritage Foundation under Jim Demint.
Yes, that's it. I just thought he sounded more and more irrational. I could make no sense of what he was saying after about half way through.
yea i have no idea how this guy got on the program. seemed like straight jedi mind tricks.
The fucker tried to defend Walmart. That's when you know a person has no heart.
Conservatives love talking about compassion to ease their conscience and feel good but they do Not like taking compassion beyond a theoretical level to put it into practice
I totally doubt that this guy has an morals.
Dude makes no sense. He sounds more and more insane as the show goes on. He has no answers to Moyers and ends up talking gobbledygook. Jeebus!
Where has this guy been for the past 30 years?! Because we all need to start smoking what he's been smoking...
Great !
When I worked at Walmart in the 90s the store manager extolled the benefits of bringing in his own pens from home instead of charging them to the store.
damn... im used to bill's guests going deeper than republican or democratic talking points. we've all heard the libertarian faith based economic doctrine before...
20:56 The start of making sense. The point ends at 21:46, but I like it a little more after that beginning point.
Mr. Brooks is either extremely naive, incredibly ignorant or making excuses.
OR he extremely devious, incredibly disingenuous, and/or out for himself.
Touche
ARTHUR ~ Go HOME! ( to one of your many houses.......) Dean Kraus
I can't help but think this guy has a clue what he's protecting and/or excluding in his position. He's being paid by the very entities who help to perpetuate the world's current economic state. I'm a bit disappointed that Mr. Moyers didn't ask about proposals beyond earned income tax credits. He mentioned several times that he had multiple ideas, I would have liked to hear them. But let's not forget that some companies are paying a living wage and still producing record profits, so his position that employers like Wal Mart can't make a profit and pay living wages to keep their employees off of public assistance is preposterous and has been debunked myriad times.
In a perfect world, a reasonable mind understands that the government is US, and government regulation simply reflects a marketplace The People choose. Government is necessary because the desire of the desperately poor to buy the cheapest product (many times to their own demise, a la Wal Mart and other self-absorbed criminals) will trump doing the right thing almost every time.
Notice I said "in a perfect world", because in its current state, the government has become an inefficient, corrupt entity, beholden to those who fund re-election campaigns, and can afford to grease the palms of their representatives in return for face time. It's evident in the lack of response to the financial meltdown of 2008. Reform has been lukewarm. The rules have changed some, but not enough to prevent greed from toppling the market again and again. Bailouts were offered with no strings attached. Common sense has taken its leave in the Capital, and the everyman is too busy worrying about his next meal to pay attention or understand.
So that is where we are. The right hates government because it traditionally places limits on rampant greed in favor of the good of The Many. The left hates government because it is failing in those duties right now, and to expect representatives to vote themselves less power, money, or influence, is like asking Albert Pujols to get base hits instead of home runs. Home runs are fun and fire up the fans, but base hits win the game.
We're screwed.
I get that this guy has a belief system and I applaud him for approaching the conversation in a reasonable way, but I just don't buy what he is selling. His underlying premise presents everyone as subservient to the "market". Most nations (outside of USA) don't subscribe to this dogma. Capitalism can be great, but it needs checks and balances, most often provided by the citizens, in the form of the Government.
OK, at 10:38, this is the greatest display of verbal political jujitsu I've ever seen. This guy is good because he just said in a very affable way what Ronald Reagan said lo so many years ago, "Government is the problem."
OK, that ending was odd. Are we not online? Why not load the whole interview, instead of the television cut?
Ok I should stop complaining. For those interested here's the link to the rest of the interview: billmoyers.com/2014/07/25/web-extra-the-conscience-of-a-compassionate-conservative/
Moyer is great get him Bill.
10:04 Sure you can. Government can never run out of money because they are the issuer of that money. You just need the available human and physical resources, which you do. And no, "printing" money does not have a direct connection to inflation. The quantity theory of money by Milton Friedman has been widely disproved. What matters for the value of money in an economy is aggregate demand.
Watch the show that's already racked up over 1300 comments. Then add yours to the mix!
Since Mr. Brooke wants us all to be moral nice people who don't cheat each other, without government interaction, such as raising the minimum wage, then which theology will he impose on us? Buddism?
When I first listened to this on #Stitcher I was impressed that the two men did try to find some common ground. Let's give some credit. We all need to be doing that, talking to those outside our comfort zone.
I finally watched the interview of Brooke on my DVR.
Here is my problem with his thinking. It ALL rests on the premise that raising the minimum wage will result in higher unemployment. Yet, my own studies indicate exactly the opposite is true, and here is why.
The world, and the US, are still mired in a "Demand Recession." The problem is not that there isn't enough money or that there isn't the ability to meet demand. The problem is that there isn't enough demand for goods and services to spur the economy.
The reason there isn't sufficient demand is that the middle class is stressed and the working lower income class isn't receiving enough wages to increase their spending.
Yes, some jobs will disappear if wages are forced upwards, but those will be replaced by higher paying jobs as demand for goods and services increases.
Further, it is the moral thing to do. People should not be working for less than a living wage. Also, the government should not be supporting people who are working full time.
While it is true increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit will have a stimulative effect on the economy as a whole, it makes less sense that the government should be supplementing incomes of the poor working class in order to line the pockets of the ownership class. Corporations like Walmart and McDonalds should pay their workers, and not force the federal government to supplement their incomes.
sandra skolnik "Brooks responded that the purpose of democracy was to support capitalism."
I swear that was enough to make me want to throw up.
This is the most uncomfortable dance I've ever seen.
Nobody is forcing you to work for substandard wages. Get better skills.
It's hardly surprising so many people have tuned out, although this could have been one way to bring another sampling of the gnarled and barbaric credo espoused by the most selfish psychopaths on Earth, in a charmingly hypocritical way, courtesy of an apologist.
I like Mr. Moyers, but sometimes the blandness of what passes for outrage is enough to make me want to take up drinking and playing bridge.
It doesn't take much of a web search to discover a virulent undercurrent of frustration and fury at how the crass lying and manipulation used by all aspirants save a few to public office. H.L. Mencken described our system best a century ago and it hasn't changed one whit since.
Bill, I humbly suggest that any conversations with economic experts begin with the following questions just to keep things out in the open from the start.
Before the great depression where were you and what were you thinking?
Do you believe Reaganomics was the cause of the great depression?
Learn about Peter Joseph and The Zeitgeist movement. Learn about a resource based economy.
Do the words "uphill battle mean anything to this guy?
I think that we need more Republicans like him and they must be willing to be honest and NOT concerned about pandering to campaign donors. However, note that he didn't answer the question as to why is capital valued more than labor. According to his "free market" ideology, those taxed higher, workers, are subsidizing the gains of capital and that must end. Also, the fact that Walmart can pay their workers so little is due to the free market, low skilled workers competing for low skill jobs, the American tax payers subsidize the profits of Walmart by supporting their workers with social programs. This must end.
Understand this, the extensive middle class as we've known it was due entirely to the application of the income tax and then the application of high upper marginal tax rates; The free market had nothing to do with the growth of the middle class until government created its environment through tax policy. "Compassionate conservatism" is a good try, but misses the mark because it is based on the "free market" and the "free market" has never solved a problem, problems are solved by political will.