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.
[…] stated, a growing economic pie is much better for poor people that incentive-sapping redistribution programs that trap people in […]
[…] about that passage is the assumption that bigger government reduces poverty. That’s nonsense. The data shows that growth is the best way of helping the […]
[…] about that passage is the assumption that bigger government reduces poverty. That’s nonsense. The data shows that growth is the best way of helping the […]
[…] misguided, however, to think that higher taxes and bigger government are an effective way of lifting people […]
[…] said the same thing in some of my interviews, but she obviously said it much more […]
[…] shouldn’t be a surprise. I’ve shared lots of evidence (over and over and over again) showing that market-driven growth is the best way of helping low-income […]
[…] Normal people automatically say yes. After all, they don’t resent rich people and they want lower-income people to enjoy better living standards. […]
[…] The bureaucrats actually acknowledge that growth is the way of helping the poor, which is a point I’ve been trying to stress for several […]
[…] again, the moral of the story should be obvious. Focus on growth. Yes, some rich people will get richer, but the really great news is that the poor will get richer […]
[…] written (many, many times) about how the best way to help the poor is to focus on economic growth rather than […]
[…] also addressed this issue, on multiple occasions, and I think the resolution of this growth-vs-redistribution debate may very well determine the […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] What’s Better for Poor People, Economic Growth or Redistribution? […]
[…] What’s Better for Poor People, Economic Growth or Redistribution? […]
[…] myopic fixation on income inequality. If they genuinely care about the less fortunate, they should be focused on policies that produce higher […]
[…] myopic fixation on income inequality. If they genuinely care about the less fortunate, they should be focused on policies that produce higher […]
[…] don’t like the inequality debate because it’s a distraction from the far more important issue of how to generate more […]
[…] don’t like the inequality debate because it’s a distraction from the far more important issue of how to generate more […]
[…] For those who genuinely care about the living standards of the less fortunate, the only factor that really matters in the long run is economic […]
[…] For those who genuinely care about the living standards of the less fortunate, the only factor that really matters in the long run is economic […]
[…] myopic fixation on income inequality. If they genuinely care about the less fortunate, they should be focused on policies that produce higher […]
[…] repeatedly argued that the focus should be growth, not redistribution. To cite just one example, it’s better to be a poor person in Singapore […]
[…] repeatedly argued that the focus should be growth, not redistribution. To cite just one example, it’s better to be a poor person in Singapore […]
[…] goal of everyone – including unions and leftist politicians – should be growth. If we get robust growth, that will mean tight labor markets, and that’s a big cause of rising […]
[…] goal of everyone – including unions and leftist politicians – should be growth. If we get robust growth, that will mean tight labor markets, and that’s a big cause of […]
[…] P.P.S. For more on the inequality vs. growth issue, here’s my PBS debate. […]
[…] said the same thing in some of my interviews, but she obviously said it much more […]
[…] Simply stated, you’re not going to be doing much to help the poor unless you focus on policies that generate faster long-run growth. […]
[…] John’s point from the column is correct. Economic growth is the way to help the poor, not […]
[…] traté de educar a un público de la PBS [cadena pública de televisión] en que el crecimiento es mejor que la redistribución, si usted […]
The Tax Code, excessive regulations, the national debt and the Federal Reserve are the major causes of the widening inequality gap.
Solutions:
Abolish Tax Code and IRS
Enact Fair Tax (national sales tax)
Minimize regulations to only what is absolutely necessary.
Balance the budget.
Start decreasing the national debt.
Abolish the Federal Reserve as we know it. Replace with automated system as Milton Friedman suggested until better solution is discovered.
Allow gold and silver as legal tender.
National Debt. $17 trillion costs or is financed by each household, who is ultimately responsible for that debt. This comes out to $148,000 per household if paid for in one lump sum. Financed for 15 years at 5% interest it would take a monthly payment of $1170.
Do not be fooled each household pays this one way or another, not the rich; whether you pay it directly in taxes and fees or by a lower standard of living than you would otherwise have if the government had not spent that money.
The question is: Is your household getting its money’s worth?
The inequality problem is counterintuitive. Big government equals more inequality. Smaller government equals less inequality.
[…] even tried to educate a PBS audience that growth is better than redistribution if you really want to help the poor. Talk about Daniel in […]
[…] even tried to educate a PBS audience that growth is better than redistribution if you really want to help the poor. Talk about Daniel in […]
[…] even tried to educate a PBS audience that growth is better than redistribution if you really want to help the poor. Talk about Daniel in […]
[…] about that passage is the assumption that bigger government reduces poverty. That’s nonsense. The data shows that growth is the best way of helping the […]
[…] that passage is the assumption that bigger government reduces poverty. That’s nonsense. The data shows that growth is the best way of helping the […]
[…] covered this issue before, and I even tried to educate a PBS audience that economic growth is key… (Look at) France and Hong Kong over the past 50 or so years. […]
[…] covered this issue before, and I even tried to educate a PBS audience that economic growth is […]
[…] cubierto este tema antes, y aunque traté de educar a un público PBS de que el crecimiento económico es la […]
[…] covered this issue before, and I even tried to educate a PBS audience that economic growth is […]
[…] 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 […]
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.
[…] 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 […]
[…] try to make that point in this PBS interview, but I suspect these charts comparing North Korea and South Korea and comparing Chile, Argentina, […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
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?
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
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.
Do you have a raw version of the interview you could post? It would be good to get the unedited version out.
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…
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.
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…