Already in the presentations, we get a glimmer into who the against people really are... a red fascist and a whiny dick... So sad, this could have been an interesting debate, but it would have helped if the against people where not true believers in the state, and unable to see any flaws in it. Its sad that the debates, the fascist Laura especially, cannot see any difference between civil society and the state and its program. You really don't need the state for music lessons or techonological progress, and food can actually be grown outside of state farms. Amazing, right? The real damage to the American Spirit, is the growing expectation from people that government will take care of their problems, provide a rich livehood and usher in a utopia. I am thankful for the effective debate controller, who could stop the against peoples incessant interferring
This debate was won by the time Roubini finished his first speech. Short answer to this. Big government isn't the problem; it is bad government. In the case of the USA crony corporatism which has bought both the main parties. For the price of re-election and a sweet job when they bow out of the political stage; corporations get massive subsidies, incredibly weak regulation and a host of other treats.
@@hess6wi as percentage of the federal budget - corporate subsidies are very small - to say other wise is to be fallacious. It turns the 60% to 70% of the federal budget is entitlements (social security,medicaid, medicare).
+Alyssa K. S. To be slightly fair, that 1 trillion I believe is yearly deficit. Bush was not a very conservative president and the war proved ill founded but the housing crash was, as the side supporting the motion only mentioned once and what Roubini successfully argued in a previous debate, was the GOVERNMENTS FAULT. If your bank has guaranteed loans and is actually forced to make them, and they make money off it it... who wouldn't make them?
I wish the woman would explain why it is the government's responsibility for things like Katrina, banking failures, etc. Her arguments seem to be operating on the assumption that government HAS to clean up messes, instead of arguing why it should
19:40 Key phrase: "Hurricane Katrina was the government's mess to clean up." That's unfortunately a common myth among progressives (and even some conservatives). Laura is going under the presumption that it's the Federal government's job to pay for everything in our lives, that the government solution is always the best. For instance, "Government pays for healthcare or everyone dies in the streets." We have to get out of the notion that everything that's good or necessary is some sort of "human right" payable by taxpayers. Private companies can do most of these tasks except for military and law enforcement, cheaper and better than government bureaucracies can. That's what the cons don't get, and I'm sad that the pros didn't press them more on that.
The 19th century did see growth, but it was unequal -- for poor, working people living in industrial cities like London their standard of living went from bad to hellish. I'm not against capitalism, but capitalism without fairness always leads to problems. There's always a balance -- no ideology works when you take it to its extremes.
Nobody really knows, thats the real problem. We need to approach this as a science where facts and predictions are the only things that matter,not politics,not opinion,not ego,not dogma,not faith,not religion...let go of biased ideology an find out what works.
"perfectly happy to have government out of the way of business, so long as those businesses are not hurting citizens with reckless behavior." I disagree as government needs to be in economic sense as well regulated markets like in financial sector, etc. The government actually creates new techonolgy like Internet from Europe like the CERN. In the social are the government has to make free as long no one get physically hurt.
Why is it that under the liberal-progressive philosophy, a true legal or moral right of one man always implies an obligation on the part of others to do something or refrain from doing something to ensure that right?!
You're correct to an extent, & Dems frequently bring up legislative acts during Reagan's presidency (amnesty to illegals) to shoot down modern-day conservatives. To resort to this argumentation completely misses the point. That Reagan supported amnesty or spent govt money etc is irrelevant to today's debates. Should a conservative today be forced to follow a policy that Reagan supported 30 yrs ago? At best the observation refutes the notion that Reagan was a diehard conservative across the board
It is unbelievable how Laura Tyson does choices for people: "they should have all they want, young people should go to college - all with financial support of GOV". Higher taxes are the answers, no problem... She looks like on party on millionaires - paid by taxpayers, of course... So weird!... and also she did not have any clue about what competition is... obviously one sided and ... oh.. and two words missing: "private property" Please read or listen Thomas Sowell: The Housing Boom and Bust (2009), clear picture of the history of all financial crisis in USA
yes yes yes . Big government does stifle the human American spirit. why ask. all points indicate. that is does. King and the slave. is that what you want and need. the interdependent of the individual. is the solution. even it is some one in the government has to step out and do the job correctly on the right.
I can understand that. That's why I personally am for minimum of laws. Basically covering restriction on use of force and fraud. How is majority rule the BEST way to decide? I mean it is when we all have to go the same way :) But WHY should we? Isn't it fascistic in principle? Unfortunately collectivist societies all demand that all go the same way and that's why they see majority rule as best. And that's why I criticize it. It's immoral, control freaking and fascistic.
Roubini is the only one with facts here. All Gramm and Laffer do is whine whine whine, and spout "American dream" jingoistic slogans with no data whatsoever. Supply-side economics has been tried and it doesn't work.
They should have brought Thomas Sowell in for this debate on the "For" side. It would have been a total demolition just on the data alone. Sowell is ALL about the data. And his demolition of socialism and communism is unassailable.
I found this debate far too politicized to be informative. I was hoping for a discussion of economic theory but it ultimately degenerated into ad-hominem attacks from those on the right panel, leaving those on the left in a constantly defensive postiton.
well, it all comes at a cost. And every time the gov increases spending it is at the expense of the public. There have been many recession where the fed did nothing and we recovered better than we have now. Your attitude that gov take care of its people is exactly what is causing dependency on the gov. the gov taking care of its own has resulted in record foodstamps, record welfare, poor, and lowest workforce participation in decades. That's really taking care of its own people...
Rubini is worst person ever on this debate platform. He shouldn't attack anybody personally. He is not here to debate really issues, but he is here to take political side.
One minute Laura is going on about us being government and the next she says it's us to blame, not the government. She then goes on to say that people do not wish to do the arithmetic. Um...so, what is it? Are we the government, or not?
Pretty poor debate. Almost entirely off topic. It turned into a democrat v. republican blame game with some big government bashing on the side (actually on both sides). No connection was made between big government and "the American Spirit" except one mention of the old exaggeration: "if you give people stuff they'll never want to work again".
Fortunately I am not the head of wages planning bureau to decide that. People are. Markets are democratic ;) More people value more the time and energy of the CEO than the coal miner. Why? a) Possibly bc coal miner is nothing special. Many people can do his job. b) If coal miner slips he hurts himself. If CEO slips and signs bad decision he hurts thousands (unless Gov bails him out in order to save voter's savings) c) coal miner without tools investor paid for is essentially just guy in pants
I have read Zinn and Chomsky, & any serious historian considers the two complete hacks. You've given away your game by claiming loyalty to the likes of those two. Friedman would destroy either or both of them simultaneously in a debate. But why are you bringing up the "military industrial complex." Only an uninformed fool would even use that phrase, b/c it makes you sound as if you don't have the slightest idea of what you speak. You're just employing a fancy-sounding term to appear intelligent.
Generally speaking: Roubini and Tyson are great representatives of curent Gouvernmental economic advisory. One dismissing "voodoo economics", which is only source of actual economical activity (and source of money for government) and other just looking where to take more money from, so "we" will give those money to make people happy. If you ever had your own business you know how dangerouse those people are - no respect for freedom of choice, no respect for private property - only respect to own power to take and keep part of it. Those are real criminals in my book.
He SELF-identified as anarcho syndicalist and socialist. That's what I call useful idiot . I did not call him a communist btw ;) Not that he is not on the same band wagon though :p USA is REPUBLIC meaning that democratic majority no matter the size shouldn't screw any one individual. You and Chomsky not seeing that democratic dictate is dictate nonetheless and it's totalitarian and anti-individual is your lack of critical thinking.
He should question his premises concerning private property and collectivism or specifically the dictate of majority. Many, many communists despised the Soviet state. Some of them even sitting in Gulags. But many of them defended the ideas which lead to Soviet tyranny even in front of execution squad. He does want US to dissolve. No problem with that as long as he offers better ideas which bring even more liberty. He does not.
roubini spends the entire debate arguing with straw men, making no effort to engage with his opponents' actual positions. it's disgusting to see an economist waste our time with rhetoric in a DEBATE, instead of talking about the god damn math. his whole argument is an appeal to incredulity: there's no refutation of the math of supply side economics, just a contrived, intentionally condescending attitude and a lot of mocking of his opponents. rather than talking about economics, he tries to discredit his opponents by bringing up unrelated quotes, and discrediting their positions on other issues. i waited and waited for a refutation of supply side economics. yet he spent literally, LITERALLY the entire debate talking about his opponent's "record" on irrelevant topics, quoting them out of context and quoting things they have changed their minds on. then he tries to discredit their arguments about economics by discrediting their opinions on politics, as though it were relevant, and implying they are somehow corrupt. that they have a conflict of interest. but wait a minute, he's a professor at a government-funded university. if they have an incentive to promote small government, then surely he has an incentive to promote big government, since without big government he loses his paycheck. but his opponents never stooped to his level. they never presumed to say "you only support big government because of personal greed," because they know that his motives don't matter. even if you have horrible motives, doesn't mean everything you say is false. hitler also believed the world was round. is the world actually flat, simply because corrupt, evil people believed it was round? even if i have a conflict of interest, i can still be objectively right. truth is truth. if you can't demonstrate that your opponent's argument is not true, then you've lost. it doesn't matter whether you demonstrate a conflict of interest, because people with conflicts of interest can still be right.
+Toxically Masculine The most toxic thing to me was that he said that people "for small government" only want to support the rich doing corrupt things then bail them out using the other sides or "socialist" tactics," this is an incredibly demagogic and conspiratorial thing to say. I do not believe he thought everything he said, I believe he researched well and only brought up things that supported his side just to test his argument ability or something. Ms. Tyson actually believes the government can save us, he may have more nefarious motives, idk, but I am surprised they didn't bring up the fact Reagan was fighting the communists and beat them which took up a lot of our discretionary. Economists of the left, when their ideas bring stagnate growth always say it would have been worse without it, why can't conservative economists apply this same logic to their own side.
Is the woman in purple talking about the Tulip Mania of the 1630s when she refers to Tulip crisis? She doesn't appear to know the history of that bubble when she said government had to clean that up--there was almost NO financial regulation in the 1630s, and any regulation the government enacted was done long after the bubble had burst, and, it appears from the histories of it I've read, was done to bail out a few favored interests, namely, the 1 percenters. I thought Dem-rats hated the 1 percenters?
Needs, opinions and reality are two different things. You can vote on having a cake and eat it too but it won't make it happen. You can vote on having a cake without paying for it bc you need it but it makes the bakers your slaves essentially when you force them to work for your need. I think it's immoral and sick when you think you are entitled to other people's money (time and energy) just because well, you have less. Did they stole the $ from you or did they force you to buy?
Well, USA had pretty good start relative to other nations. And in level of individual liberty is still in top ten. But instead of strengthening the original founding principle of individual liberty it got eroded by collectivist policies. It adopted national socialistic principles from Europe mainly under FDR and is on the course to Oligarchy through social democratic policies and Fabian socialism strategy. It complies with more points of Communist manifesto than not.
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
- Thomas Jefferson
30:07 "The dream of America has always been to make the poor rich, not to make the rich poor." AMEN!
Already in the presentations, we get a glimmer into who the against people really are... a red fascist and a whiny dick... So sad, this could have been an interesting debate, but it would have helped if the against people where not true believers in the state, and unable to see any flaws in it.
Its sad that the debates, the fascist Laura especially, cannot see any difference between civil society and the state and its program. You really don't need the state for music lessons or techonological progress, and food can actually be grown outside of state farms. Amazing, right?
The real damage to the American Spirit, is the growing expectation from people that government will take care of their problems, provide a rich livehood and usher in a utopia.
I am thankful for the effective debate controller, who could stop the against peoples incessant interferring
1;09;30 perfect. America isn't "programs" our spirit is INDEPENDENCE.
I liked how they kept cutting to Nouriel Roubini when anyone was speaking. He had this look on his face like he wanted to say, "Really?"
I wish Milton Friedman was still alive and could debate on this forum. His Free to Choose was amazing
This is not religion...it's economics. It's not about faith or feelings, it's about facts and what works best for everybody.
what is capitalism without fairness? pure capitalism is by it's nature the most fair system possible
This debate was won by the time Roubini finished his first speech.
Short answer to this. Big government isn't the problem; it is bad government. In the case of the USA crony corporatism which has bought both the main parties. For the price of re-election and a sweet job when they bow out of the political stage; corporations get massive subsidies, incredibly weak regulation and a host of other treats.
But that's the thing; big government by its nature IS bad government.
I think that you can have substantial and useful government then again I live in Europe so I don't have to look far for evidence of that.
@@hess6wi as percentage of the federal budget - corporate subsidies are very small - to say other wise is to be fallacious. It turns the 60% to 70% of the federal budget is entitlements (social security,medicaid, medicare).
Yes, God forbid a government looks after its own people.
They were only at 1 trillion in debt! That's hard to handle, considering we are now at 16 trillion!!!
Almost 18 now
Nicholas Tart , crazy right?
+Alyssa K. S. To be slightly fair, that 1 trillion I believe is yearly deficit. Bush was not a very conservative president and the war proved ill founded but the housing crash was, as the side supporting the motion only mentioned once and what Roubini successfully argued in a previous debate, was the GOVERNMENTS FAULT. If your bank has guaranteed loans and is actually forced to make them, and they make money off it it... who wouldn't make them?
I wish the woman would explain why it is the government's responsibility for things like Katrina, banking failures, etc. Her arguments seem to be operating on the assumption that government HAS to clean up messes, instead of arguing why it should
Why do they even entertain these stupid ''debates''. Big government has butchered the american dream.
Laffer debating Peter Schiff in 2007 was pitiful.
Less population and smaller government when bill was president
Government is not some thing else. The individual interdependent.
spend less on military and defense Pentagon spending if you want smaller government
No plan for people will work because people are never perfect.
He equated poor people with non working.....most poor people are working people.
There is a reason why they appear poorly prepared. It's because they are supporting a losing argument.
19:40 Key phrase: "Hurricane Katrina was the government's mess to clean up." That's unfortunately a common myth among progressives (and even some conservatives). Laura is going under the presumption that it's the Federal government's job to pay for everything in our lives, that the government solution is always the best. For instance, "Government pays for healthcare or everyone dies in the streets." We have to get out of the notion that everything that's good or necessary is some sort of "human right" payable by taxpayers. Private companies can do most of these tasks except for military and law enforcement, cheaper and better than government bureaucracies can. That's what the cons don't get, and I'm sad that the pros didn't press them more on that.
The 19th century did see growth, but it was unequal -- for poor, working people living in industrial cities like London their standard of living went from bad to hellish. I'm not against capitalism, but capitalism without fairness always leads to problems. There's always a balance -- no ideology works when you take it to its extremes.
Nobody really knows, thats the real problem. We need to approach this as a science where facts and predictions are the only things that matter,not politics,not opinion,not ego,not dogma,not faith,not religion...let go of biased ideology an find out what works.
I love this youtube channel
Don't regulate anything and we get a gap between rich and poor like South America. Slums in the shadow of high rises.
"perfectly happy to have government out of the way of business, so long as those businesses are not hurting citizens with reckless behavior." I disagree as government needs to be in economic sense as well regulated markets like in financial sector, etc. The government actually creates new techonolgy like Internet from Europe like the CERN. In the social are the government has to make free as long no one get physically hurt.
More regulating , taxes , unions is why Heath costs skyrocket
no talk about the waar on terror , drugs, obecesety ,,america declare war on everything but they just skipped over that
Because the unions hire more public servents , growing government
Thanks to democradic retards
Why is it that under the liberal-progressive philosophy, a true legal or moral right of one man always implies an obligation on the part of others to do something or refrain from doing something to ensure that right?!
You're correct to an extent, & Dems frequently bring up legislative acts during Reagan's presidency (amnesty to illegals) to shoot down modern-day conservatives. To resort to this argumentation completely misses the point. That Reagan supported amnesty or spent govt money etc is irrelevant to today's debates. Should a conservative today be forced to follow a policy that Reagan supported 30 yrs ago? At best the observation refutes the notion that Reagan was a diehard conservative across the board
It is unbelievable how Laura Tyson does choices for people: "they should have all they want, young people should go to college - all with financial support of GOV". Higher taxes are the answers, no problem... She looks like on party on millionaires - paid by taxpayers, of course... So weird!... and also she did not have any clue about what competition is... obviously one sided and ... oh.. and two words missing: "private property"
Please read or listen Thomas Sowell: The Housing Boom and Bust (2009), clear picture of the history of all financial crisis in USA
I really feel the debate was implemented very weakly by the panels. I really like these debates collectively, though.
Thanks, Intelligence Squared!
yes yes yes . Big government does stifle the human American spirit. why ask. all points indicate. that is does. King and the slave. is that what you want and need. the interdependent of the individual. is the solution. even it is some one in the government has to step out and do the job correctly on the right.
Unions pugs up government wages
I can understand that. That's why I personally am for minimum of laws. Basically covering restriction on use of force and fraud.
How is majority rule the BEST way to decide?
I mean it is when we all have to go the same way :)
But WHY should we?
Isn't it fascistic in principle? Unfortunately collectivist societies all demand that all go the same way and that's why they see majority rule as best.
And that's why I criticize it. It's immoral, control freaking and fascistic.
Roubini is the only one with facts here. All Gramm and Laffer do is whine whine whine, and spout "American dream" jingoistic slogans with no data whatsoever. Supply-side economics has been tried and it doesn't work.
So 4% and 5% gdp growth is not a validattion and staflgation of the 70s is good ?
They should have brought Thomas Sowell in for this debate on the "For" side. It would have been a total demolition just on the data alone. Sowell is ALL about the data. And his demolition of socialism and communism is unassailable.
a silence child is required of you
Yikes! the sound is terrible on this
I found this debate far too politicized to be informative. I was hoping for a discussion of economic theory but it ultimately degenerated into ad-hominem attacks from those on the right panel, leaving those on the left in a constantly defensive postiton.
well, it all comes at a cost. And every time the gov increases spending it is at the expense of the public. There have been many recession where the fed did nothing and we recovered better than we have now. Your attitude that gov take care of its people is exactly what is causing dependency on the gov. the gov taking care of its own has resulted in record foodstamps, record welfare, poor, and lowest workforce participation in decades. That's really taking care of its own people...
Rubini is worst person ever on this debate platform. He shouldn't attack anybody personally. He is not here to debate really issues, but he is here to take political side.
CrackOpenWisdom and for a cheap laugh
He just came across as obnoxious.
One minute Laura is going on about us being government and the next she says it's us to blame, not the government. She then goes on to say that people do not wish to do the arithmetic. Um...so, what is it? Are we the government, or not?
Pretty poor debate. Almost entirely off topic. It turned into a democrat v. republican blame game with some big government bashing on the side (actually on both sides). No connection was made between big government and "the American Spirit" except one mention of the old exaggeration: "if you give people stuff they'll never want to work again".
Fortunately I am not the head of wages planning bureau to decide that. People are. Markets are democratic ;)
More people value more the time and energy of the CEO than the coal miner.
Why?
a) Possibly bc coal miner is nothing special. Many people can do his job.
b) If coal miner slips he hurts himself. If CEO slips and signs bad decision he hurts thousands (unless Gov bails him out in order to save voter's savings)
c) coal miner without tools investor paid for is essentially just guy in pants
I could sense that the side against the motion was going to lose, especially because Laura Tyson was a crappy debater.
I have read Zinn and Chomsky, & any serious historian considers the two complete hacks. You've given away your game by claiming loyalty to the likes of those two. Friedman would destroy either or both of them simultaneously in a debate. But why are you bringing up the "military industrial complex." Only an uninformed fool would even use that phrase, b/c it makes you sound as if you don't have the slightest idea of what you speak. You're just employing a fancy-sounding term to appear intelligent.
Generally speaking: Roubini and Tyson are great representatives of curent Gouvernmental economic advisory. One dismissing "voodoo economics", which is only source of actual economical activity (and source of money for government) and other just looking where to take more money from, so "we" will give those money to make people happy. If you ever had your own business you know how dangerouse those people are - no respect for freedom of choice, no respect for private property - only respect to own power to take and keep part of it. Those are real criminals in my book.
He SELF-identified as anarcho syndicalist and socialist. That's what I call useful idiot . I did not call him a communist btw ;) Not that he is not on the same band wagon though :p
USA is REPUBLIC meaning that democratic majority no matter the size shouldn't screw any one individual.
You and Chomsky not seeing that democratic dictate is dictate nonetheless and it's totalitarian and anti-individual is your lack of critical thinking.
He should question his premises concerning private property and collectivism or specifically the dictate of majority.
Many, many communists despised the Soviet state. Some of them even sitting in Gulags. But many of them defended the ideas which lead to Soviet tyranny even in front of execution squad.
He does want US to dissolve. No problem with that as long as he offers better ideas which bring even more liberty. He does not.
roubini spends the entire debate arguing with straw men, making no effort to engage with his opponents' actual positions. it's disgusting to see an economist waste our time with rhetoric in a DEBATE, instead of talking about the god damn math. his whole argument is an appeal to incredulity: there's no refutation of the math of supply side economics, just a contrived, intentionally condescending attitude and a lot of mocking of his opponents. rather than talking about economics, he tries to discredit his opponents by bringing up unrelated quotes, and discrediting their positions on other issues. i waited and waited for a refutation of supply side economics. yet he spent literally, LITERALLY the entire debate talking about his opponent's "record" on irrelevant topics, quoting them out of context and quoting things they have changed their minds on. then he tries to discredit their arguments about economics by discrediting their opinions on politics, as though it were relevant, and implying they are somehow corrupt. that they have a conflict of interest. but wait a minute, he's a professor at a government-funded university. if they have an incentive to promote small government, then surely he has an incentive to promote big government, since without big government he loses his paycheck. but his opponents never stooped to his level. they never presumed to say "you only support big government because of personal greed," because they know that his motives don't matter. even if you have horrible motives, doesn't mean everything you say is false. hitler also believed the world was round. is the world actually flat, simply because corrupt, evil people believed it was round? even if i have a conflict of interest, i can still be objectively right. truth is truth. if you can't demonstrate that your opponent's argument is not true, then you've lost. it doesn't matter whether you demonstrate a conflict of interest, because people with conflicts of interest can still be right.
+Toxically Masculine The most toxic thing to me was that he said that people "for small government" only want to support the rich doing corrupt things then bail them out using the other sides or "socialist" tactics," this is an incredibly demagogic and conspiratorial thing to say. I do not believe he thought everything he said, I believe he researched well and only brought up things that supported his side just to test his argument ability or something. Ms. Tyson actually believes the government can save us, he may have more nefarious motives, idk, but I am surprised they didn't bring up the fact Reagan was fighting the communists and beat them which took up a lot of our discretionary. Economists of the left, when their ideas bring stagnate growth always say it would have been worse without it, why can't conservative economists apply this same logic to their own side.
Is the woman in purple talking about the Tulip Mania of the 1630s when she refers to Tulip crisis? She doesn't appear to know the history of that bubble when she said government had to clean that up--there was almost NO financial regulation in the 1630s, and any regulation the government enacted was done long after the bubble had burst, and, it appears from the histories of it I've read, was done to bail out a few favored interests, namely, the 1 percenters. I thought Dem-rats hated the 1 percenters?
If only you knew lol
Needs, opinions and reality are two different things.
You can vote on having a cake and eat it too but it won't make it happen.
You can vote on having a cake without paying for it bc you need it but it makes the bakers your slaves essentially when you force them to work for your need.
I think it's immoral and sick when you think you are entitled to other people's money (time and energy) just because well, you have less.
Did they stole the $ from you or did they force you to buy?
Nice for lesrning
Well, USA had pretty good start relative to other nations.
And in level of individual liberty is still in top ten.
But instead of strengthening the original founding principle of individual liberty it got eroded by collectivist policies. It adopted national socialistic principles from Europe mainly under FDR and is on the course to Oligarchy through social democratic policies and Fabian socialism strategy. It complies with more points of Communist manifesto than not.
So off topic.
What are you ranting about, exactly? You sound a bit irrational.