I took part in a thirty-minute online Skype debate for PBS on income inequality, and they boiled it down to the 4:44 youtube video embedded below.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that I said economic growth was the key. I don’t want to re-slice the pie. I want to make it bigger.
I wish I had used my example of Chile v. Argentina v. Venezuela. Or my more recent post on Singapore’s remarkable growth.
One thing I did mention is that the poverty rate was falling for much of U.S. history, but then stopped falling once the so-called War on Poverty began. I pointed out that this was compelling evidence that spending $trillions on income redistribution was trapping people in poverty.
Unfortunately, this part was edited out, perhaps because the lefties at PBS didn’t want more people exposed to this inconvenient truth. Here’s what wasn’t left on the editing room floor.
I’m not sure how they formatted the video, but at least it makes me look skinny.
Well… If you listen to & believe the Dem’s, Lib’s & Progressives, Redistribution is the way to go… Personally, I see that as them saying your to dumb, stupid &/or uneducated to do it yourself and must have their “help” if you are going to have any chance to succeed…
The problem I see with redistribution is that you don’t redistribute productivity. Ultimately you are taking the productive fruits from one person and providing reward for lack of productivity to another.
There is a huge difference between a “hand up” and a handout. Unfortunately, government is good only at the handout. There is, for the productive, a huge psychological, and even spiritual, difference as well. Most people are willing to help out, but when it gets to the point were people are simply being supported for contributing nothing (and not even trying) it is a whole different matter. There is also a difference for the recipients. The British riots told a story of complete disconnect from the need to be productive or contribute anything combined with a sense of entitlement. Somehow, without need to make any contribution to anything or anyone else, people were entitled to that which the productive produce. This doesn’t work either economically or psychologically… not for long, anyway.
Right on Pat, I try to explain that even if we all got to an even point, it wouldn’t stay that way for long, so do you keep doing it? Example, we all get a nice new car… Now some of us take really good care of it, all the oil changes on time, washed and all… Some don’t, some have little minor crashes, scratches in the paint, cigaret burns on the seats and so on… So after 3 years we’re no longer equal or even…
Do you have a raw version of the interview you could post? It would be good to get the unedited version out.
Personally, I’d be very weary of contributing to a “debate” in which my contract strips me of any discretion and final say over which portions of my arguments will be cut.
[...] But federalism is only part of the answer. The best way of dealing with poverty is economic growth, which is the point I make in this online video debate for PBS. [...]
[...] As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers – and bad for poor people. [...]
[...] As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers — and bad for poor people. [...]
[...] As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers – and bad for poor people. [...]
[...] have the federal government tell people what they’re allowed to buy. The right policy is to end the federal government’s involvement in redistribution programs and let states decide who should receive subsidies and what form those handouts should [...]
[...] As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers — and bad for poor people. [...]
[...] That’s why I’ve argued that economic growth is the best way of helping the less fortunate. [...]
[...] did a debate on income inequality for PBS, but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] did a debate on income inequality for PBS, but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] did a debate on income inequality for PBS, but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] did a debate on income inequality for PBS, but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] did a debate on income inequality for PBS but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] type="text/javascript">');document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,47,83,67,82,73,80,84,62)); I did a debate on income inequality for PBS but haven’t written much about the issue because I think it is a misguided [...]
[...] if you want even more, here’s something I wrote on income inequality and here’s a debate I did on income mobility. Even better, here’s what Margaret Thatcher said about these topics. Rate this: Share [...]
INEQUALITY #4 IN oecd.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE HEAD IN A HOLE TO IGNORE INEQUALITY
TODAY–PROVE ME WRONG WITH NUMBER NOT OPINIONS–20% OWN IN NEIGHBORHOOD OF 80% OF WEALTH AND 50% OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME
80% OWN 12% AND GET 12%
THAT MEANS # 4
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN SINCE 1980?
[...] This interview and this video have more information for those who want a more detailed look at anti-poverty issues. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
[...] This interview and this video have more information for those who want a more detailed look at anti-poverty issues. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
[...] That’s why I’ve argued that economic growth is the best way of helping the less fortunate. [...]
[...] As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers — and bad for poor people. [...]
[...] reality, of course, government programs tend to make problems worse, and that’s definitely been the case with the supposed War on Poverty. We have record levels of food stamp dependency, with more and [...]
[...] reality, of course, government programs tend to make problems worse, and that’s definitely been the case with the supposed War on Poverty. We have record levels of food stamp dependency, with more and [...]
[...] written and pontificated about the problem of government-created dependency and how the welfare state traps people in [...]
[...] written and pontificated about the problem of government-created dependency and how the welfare state traps people in [...]
[...] more information, here’s a short debate I had about the topic, and here’s a video explaining how the welfare state is bad for both poor people and [...]
[...] try to make that point in this PBS interview, but I suspect these charts comparing North Korea and South Korea and comparing Chile, Argentina, [...]
[...] you want even more, here’s something I wrote on income inequality and here’s a debate I did on income mobility. Even better, here’s what Margaret Thatcher said about these [...]
There are always two reasons for everything the government does. There is a very good reason, the rational they give you for doing it, and the real reason.
The real reason for addicting the majority of a society to welfare is to control it. All entities struggle to gain more control and power. Our founders were aware of this when they formed our country. They wanted the citizens to control the government as apposed to the government controlling its citizens.
Once we have traded in our freedom for welfare the real wealth redistribution will begin. The mighty government will take all the wealth away from its peasants. Then their will be just two classes of people again, the lords and the peasants.
Of course they will need our guns first. But they will come up with a “good reason” for taking them.
The irony of it is that as they steal our wealth the poor dumb bastards on welfare will cheer on the government. As long as they perceive the rich are being hurt more than they are they will welcome the degradation of their own standard of living.
[...] said the same thing in some of my interviews, but she obviously said it much more [...]
[...] said the same thing in some of my interviews, but she obviously said it much more [...]