Robert Reich Is Wrong About Billionaires—and Almost Everything Else
His ideas would leave us poorer and less free.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich now makes videos, like I do.
In fact, his channel, Inequality Media, is very much like Stossel TV. He also reaches people via social media platforms, gets millions of views, and covers economic topics.
Reich does almost exactly what I do, except Reich is repeatedly wrong.
It's understandable. Despite being frequently introduced as "economist Robert Reich," Reich has no economics degree. He's another liberal lawyer. His videos reflect that.
"Inequality Media" is a catchy name. Americans dislike inequality.
But my new video points out that inequality isn't a conspiracy. It's simply what happens when people are free.
Taylor Swift's a billionaire. Should government force you to listen to me sing to make life more fair?
Reich wants to "ban billionaires" like Jeff Bezos. I don't much like Bezos, but his creation, Amazon, is wonderful. It's lowered prices so much that it cut America's core inflation.
Reich claims Amazon is a monopoly. But Amazon is far from a monopoly. It has to compete with Walmart, Target, eBay, Alibaba, etc. Where there are free markets, we have choices. If we buy from Amazon, it's only because we think it's cheaper or better.
Reich says it is bad that billionaires "get money from rich relatives."
But the biggest study of millionaires found few do.
Bezos got some money from his parents, but most of what he needed to grow Amazon he got from investors. Media "experts" sneered at them for years, because at first, Amazon lost so much money.
Capitalism rewards such risk-taking.
Progressives and liberal lawyers like Reich believe rich people take most of America's wealth and leave little for the poor. Like the Hollywood writers for the movie Wall Street, they call our economy "a zero-sum game—somebody wins, somebody loses."
But that's just dumb.
Capitalists create new wealth. They don't take a big slice of the pie and leave us a sliver. If they get rich, it's because they find ways to bake lots of new pies.
That's what's happened in America. Its why today, even poor Americans have access to things European kings only dreamed about.
Capitalists can get rich only by making all of us better off.
Actual economist Dan Mitchell explains, "Billionaires only kept 2.2 percent of the additional wealth they generated….The rest of us captured almost 98 percent of the benefits."
Reich also mocks trade. In one video, he sneers, "Global trade is good for everyone. That's bunk!"
Of course it's bunk. Few things are good for everyone.
But trade makes almost everyone richer by allowing us to specialize in what we do best. It's called comparative advantage.
Reich complains, "What if a country's comparative advantage comes from people working under…exploitative conditions?"
"Exploitation" would be bad, but people in poor countries aren't forced to work in factories. They took those jobs because their alternatives were worse. Trade allowed a billion people to lift themselves out of poverty.
Still, trade does take away some Americans' jobs. Donald Trump complains about other countries "ripping us off and taking our jobs."
He and Reich don't understand that trade creates more jobs. It's why unemployment is low. Companies engaged in global trade created 60 percent of America's new jobs.
Finally, Reich says it's "rubbish" that President Joe Biden's huge spending increases caused inflation. He claims it's "corporate greed….Mega corporations raise prices to increase their profits."
That's just silly. When prices fall, did companies suddenly get less greedy?
My video cites actual economists like Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who explains, "Inflation is made in Washington because only Washington can create money. Any other attribution of other groups to inflation is wrong."
Robert Reich's videos are wrong about almost everything. It's sad that colleges pay this fake economist to deliver foolish propaganda to students.
His "progressive" ideas would leave all of us poorer. And less free.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s all envy driven.
Covetousness is the root of many evils.
The Stoss don’t think Robert has the reich stuff.
Robert "The Third" Reich strikes again!
Only leftists say Trump doesn’t understand trade. Stossel has gone full leftist.
Poor sarc, just a binary thinker.
It’s because we gaslight him.
It was just a matter of time before the MAGA Mob turned on Stossel just like they did PJ O'Rourke and Penn Jilette.
Unwavering fealty is due to King Donnie. MAGA knows how to serve.
Penn and O’Rourke outed themselves in the end as blatant unprincipled hypocrites.
I don't see anyone here 'turning on' Stossel
Yeah, we need MORE Stossel. Them maybe they can scrape off Boehm and Sullum.
When did this happen?
As Shrike was making up bullshit for yet another trollpost.
Penn kind of turned into a pussy when he stopped eating meat. But I'm not going to "turn" on anyone who isn't a complete idiot. Being wrong about some things doesn't mean a person won't still have interesting and worthwhile things to say too.
I could be wrong, but wasn't Penn also a big supporter of lockdowns and mandating the Covid vax?
I had mostly stopped paying attention to him by then.
He should stick to being an entertainer, he's really good at that.
https://reason.com/podcast/2022/07/27/penn-jillette-did-his-libertarianism-survive-trump-and-covid/
https://reason.com/video/2022/07/28/is-penn-jillette-still-a-libertarian/
Jillette: Not wearing a mask is like driving drunk
He simply took off his skeptical hat and believed the 'powers that be', as did very many people. Most others followed the real science and, thinking for themselves, realized it was BS. Jillette apparently did not. And of course, Trump is icky, so Jillette can't be seen to like him. What a coward!
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
How did I know this comment from you was coming when I read that line in the article? Oh, that's right, because you spam it into the comments of EVERY FUCKING ARTICLE.
Dude, get some new material. You're like the spurned ex who makes sure to make every conversation about how terrible his/her ex was, even if the conversation had nothing to do with her/him. Even if your friends know your ex was a bad person, upon the 1000th time hearing you interject it into every conversation, they don't want to talk to you because the result will be the same.
Maybe when you and your gang stops attacking anyone critical of Trump with accusations of being a leftist, I won’t point out that anyone who is critical of Trump will be attacked with accusations of being a leftist.
First, I don't have a gang. You always try to shoehorn people into teams, while decrying teams. I'm responsible for my own words, as you are responsible for your words.
Second, despite you claiming that commenters constantly accuse anyone critical of Trump as being a "leftist," I don't see anyone in this article's comments doing that to Stossel. You have this mental construct of how everyone behaves, and whether it's confirmation bias or some other reason, reality rarely lives up to it. But you don't change your construct when the evidence shows otherwise.
Of course they didn’t. I got here first. They weren’t going to prove me correct. Had I not made that comment it's a forgone conclusion that the folks you defend would have attacked him for criticizing Trump on trade.
Had I not made that comment it’s a forgone conclusion that the folks you defend would have attacked him for criticizing Trump on trade.
Facts not in evidence.
How 'bout some facts that we do have evidence for? Yesterday someone asked about whom Stossel would vote for. I don't know how to link the conversation to exactly where I want it, so I've pasted it below. Notice no one replied that Stossel is a leftist for not supporting Trump, but people are ridiculing your stupid standard that has you spamming every comment section with something similar:
Jefferson Paul 1 day ago
I watched Stossel on Michael Malice’s podcast a couple of weeks ago. Stossel said he’s just not going to vote, and that New York is going to go for Kamala regardless.
I’d hope he could recognize Trump as the least bad option that could still win, but I’ll respect his decision if he does abstain.
Bertram Guilfoyle 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Respect? Per sarcasmic, you must hate Stossel because of this.
Chumby 23 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Due to Stossel being binary.
BG is a functional retard who I keep on mute, and Chumby is a clown I mostly ignore. Not sure what your point is, though I will say I get attacked regularly for not voting in a state that will go blue.
Sarc never attacks people. He's an "ideas only" man.
"and Chumby is a clown I mostly ignore."
JP's comparison of Sarckles to a spurned ex is extremely apt. For example:
"sarcasmic
November.2.2021 at 10:19 am
Chumby does. Pretty sure he's a Mainer. But he's got me on mute. You know, virtue signaling to Ken."
Trump is wrong about trade. Does that make me a leftist??
He is still far, far, far better than Kamala/SloJo/Hillary/Liawatha etc. who would have the government micromanage trade (and everything else).
""You have this mental construct of how everyone behaves,""
This.
You seem to want to speak for other people based on that construct.
This is what weasels like him do. Project their own insecurities into others.
also, when used in a comment section preemptively its known as poisoning the well.
If it stops a bunch of retards from saying a bunch of retarded shit, then it's worth it.
bunch of retards
You, jeff, and shrike continue to post.
And yet you continue to post...
Sarc is poison.
Jeffsarc with Pluggo makes a Mötley Crüe?
Nah, is just him being him. It's been going on for many years. Don't take it so hard. Sometimes he's worthwhile, sometimes he's a loon, I think sometimes he says things just because he gets a charge out of working people up. I am impressed with the knowledge that he's still doing his thing here considering the never-ending slap-fight this place became. Props for that Sarc.
Only thing I wanted to say is that for me Stossel is pretty much the only thing I look at Reason for anymore. Disappointing, but there it is.
So wait, you believe that people would be attacking Stossel up and down the thread, if only you hadn't posted your strawman (which everyone has already seen eleventy billion times already)?
So shouldn't we be able to go back thru old Stossel threads to see this in action? Surely you didn't "get there first" in every Stossel thread?
Comment ignored for having "you" in it.
This must be Stossel's third Reich attack.
Would you prefer Stossel giving him a Reich around?
That was a bit of a stretch
I did not see that one coming.
Stoss could let Rob handle it himself.
"Reich wants to 'ban billionaires' like Jeff Bezos."
Does the child-sized adult explain the logic of spiting Jeff Bezos by voting for the political party that Jeff Bezos' newspaper tells us to vote for?
It'll be interesting to see how loyal Bezos' newspaper stays to the party if Harris gets in and tries to force down prices at Bezos' notoriously high-priced supermarket chain (especially with Erewohn making people in the "Big Blue" cities think that WF is actually remarkably cheap) or dismantle his online-retail "monopoly"?
Who was it that said to never pick a fight with anyone that buys their ink in railcars?
Stossel says leave "us poorer"? Is wealth some sort of shared condition?
No, but there are such things as generalizations and averages.
Historically, there's been a strong correlation between economies which create prosperity and those in which there's significant inequality present.
There's no denying that a lot of high-inequality systems also didn't create prosperity (feudalism, for example).
Reich buys into an economic ideology (which is popular to the point of being nearly mandatory within academic circles these days) which has itself blinded to the third part of history, which is that all prior attempts to supposedly eliminate the inequality from the prosperous systems have ended up destroying the prosperity instead while usually just changing the names and criteria for who gets to benefit from the ongoing inequality.
^+1. Sowell can go on for hours on this issue and anyone reading his books (among others) can spend enjoyable hours learning why
I liked him better when he represented the Lollipop Guild
https://youtu.be/XBsf8qsxs2M?si=_ACb01YXMCMkP1PS
""Reich says it is bad that billionaires "get money from rich relatives."""
How did Jay Z get his billion?
Your US history classes never mentioned the famous black Railroad Baron of the 1800's, Thelonius Z?
Did they also whitewash that Dr Dre is actually the 3rd generation in his family to hold a PHD in Physics and that his great-grandfather had the original patent on the carburetor? Without that invention, the automotive industry could never have existed and the family foundation was taking in seven figures a month in royalties until the development of fuel injection forced the family scion to pursue a career in music in the late 1980s.
Or Oprah, or Michael Jordon?
Zuckerburg's parents were a dentist and a psychiatrist, so there was some money there, but not trust-fund kind of money. I've never paid a penny to Zuckerburg but I do peek at my Facebook account from time to time. Did *you* ever pay Zuck for anything?
Stossel is, of course, by and large right. Trump supporters now have to twist themselves into knots to explain why criticising Reich for being against free trade is entirely correct but criticising Trump on identical grounds is unfair, biased, etc.
Stossel does make one evident non sequitur: “Reich says it is bad that billionaires “get money from rich relatives.” But the biggest study of millionaires found few do.”
The study applied to millionaires, not just billionaires. That doesn’t mean that it’s not true that few billlionaires got money from rich relatives, only that the study provides no specific evidence. Annoyingly, there’s no quantitative breakdown – it might be interesting to find out whether there were differences in original finances between those worth say $1mm to $5mm and say $50mm to $75mm.
But…if one looks at the list of wealthiest Americans, very few evidently benefited from family wealth – Musk, Walmart heirs, the Kochs – the rest are largely self-made (with an asterisk against Bill Gates).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201426/the-richest-people-in-america/
So this only adds to/confirms Stossel’s point. Reich may have had a point if he’d included, “borrowing money from well-off relatives” – certainly being able to get seed money helps. But that – contra Reich – is an argument for encouraging entrepreneurship in general. People are more willing to invest when they see that the recipient of their investment has a clue or that entrepreneurship is encouraged, not penalised.
The thing that bugs me about that complaint about people inheriting money is the assumption that there is anything wrong with benefiting from what your family sees fit to bequeath.
Yeah. As long as they're not stealing it, I really don't care. It's a non-issue.
To those who believe as Reich does, pretty much all privately held assets are at some level "stolen" since all wealth is, in their opinion, the rightful property of the State as a proxy for being owned by "the people" as a collective.
You want more people inheriting money, not fewer.
In a hypothetical zero-sum economy, inheriting money is unfair as it gives the heirs an advantage and hence puts the rest at a disadvantage - but IRL economies are not generally zero sum.
Yeah, looking at it as zero-sum is a big part of the problem. One person being rich is not the reason why others are poor. I also object to how fairness is characterized. To me, fair means that people get to decide what to do with their own property and assets if they came by them honestly. Punishing people for success is not fair if you ask me.
To me, fair means that people get what other people voluntarily give them.
the solution is having the government confiscate people's private property
That's what "foundations" are for.
In addition to the tax advantages (avoiding estate taxes, and 1% rate on future capital gains for more than a century now), the family retains control over the fortune by designating themselves as Officers and Trustees of the foundation (paid positions which can include whatever salary and "perks" those Officers and Trustees deem appropriate) but doesn't technically "own" much of it directly, and since the foundation itself is "not-for-profit" they might even be forced to pay out large "dividends" (again, to whoever the people running the thing decide to pay out to) at the end of the year depending on how the investments have performed.
It might even be a better scam than taking a piece of your son's global influence-peddling income and having a "reputable" media establishment that's willing to take literal instructions on how to "appropriately" cover any investigation that you don't manage to squash from a high-level government job.
inheriting money is unfair as it gives the heirs an advantage and hence puts the rest at a disadvantage
Several problems here.
Why is giving heirs an advantage "unfair"? What if that's the specific intent of the gifter? Most people like to give their own family advantages, over the rest of the planet. Calling that "unfair" is equivalent to saying it's unfair for parents to provide a roof over their kids' heads but not the homeless guy down the street.
It also doesn't follow that giving family members an advantage results in "disadvantaging" everyone else. Once again this is a fallacy rooted in lack of understanding what "family" means.
If you had read what I wrote as opposed to what you think I wrote, you would have noticed that I prefaced my comment on unfairness with "In a hypothetical zero-sum economy," and then noted "IRL economies are not generally zero sum."
No need to apologise.
^+1
No apology forthcoming, because I don't see how "in a hypothetical zero-sum economy" affects my analysis about families.
"A hypothetical zero-sum economy" would not remove the condition that family members favor other family members, and that it's a fundamental building block of society, and not "unfair," to do so.
In a zero sum family the parents don't feed the kids.
I forgot. This is the internet. One must never admit mistakes. You were attacking as a real thing something I made clear wasn't.
Trump supporters now have to twist themselves into knots to explain why criticising Reich for being against free trade is entirely correct but criticising Trump on identical grounds is unfair, biased, etc.
Do you and sarc work on your dem led strawman arguments together?
Please tell me which "Free Trade" agreement you want to hold up as free trade. They seem to be negotiated large sets of terms that set import rates, tariffs, regulatory structure, etc. How is that free trade shrike?
Trump supporters now have to twist themselves into knots to explain why criticising Reich for being against free trade is entirely correct but criticising Trump on identical grounds is unfair, biased, etc.
If the two of them stood next to each other and said the exact same thing at the exact same time, the Trump faithful would praise Trump for being so smart and wise while throwing tomatoes at Reich for being a leftist dumbass.
It's all based upon who, not what.
*yawn*
You’re such a boring, drunken, one note hack.
So binary.
It's as if you don't read what the libertarians on this site and message board actually write. Very few defend Trump's tariffs.
And there are very few libertarians, but a ton of people who do defend Trump's tariffs.
The Celebration Parallax
A parallax is the apparent difference in position of the same object seen from different vantage points. For instance, an analogue speedometer that reads sixty miles per hour to the driver, but fifty to the passenger—even though the needle itself is only in one place.
The Celebration Parallax may be stated as: “the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it.” In contemporary speech, on any “controversial” topic—or, to say better, regime priority—the decisive factor is the intent of the speaker. If she can be presumed to be celebrating the phenomenon under discussion, she may shout her approval from the rooftops. If not, he better shut up before someone comes along to shut him up.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/
10 seconds on Google:
Robert Reich is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator who has a net worth of $4 million.
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/robert-reich-net-worth/
Four million? Is that all? I'm sorry. Really? 4? I don't think he deserves the "ink" that this e-article took to "print".
CB
Shit, my net worth is bigger than that. Why should I listen to this loser?
'His ideas would leave us poorer and less free.'
Feature, not bug.
“Capitalists can get rich only by making all of us better off.”
Of all the incredibly dumb things to say. Look, I’m all for capitalism and a lot of his critique of Reich is well-founded, but this is the kind of dumb statement that you put in when you’re all in for a particular world view rather than truth.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who can think of countless examples of capitalists who got very rich by making at least some of us, and many times all of us, worse off. Tobacco companies, for example, undoubtedly, did not make “all of us” better off. There are other examples of capitalists getting rich by killing people, as just some of the worst examples.
Also:
“‘Exploitation’ would be bad, but people in poor countries aren’t forced to work in factories.”
Actually, sometimes they are. This is another example of how John Stossel endeavors to make everyone dumber by criticizing sensationalist rhetoric from the other side using exactly the same, dumb sensationalist rhetoric from his side.
A pox on the houses of both Stossel and Reich.
The vast majority of the time, capitalists do get rich by making us all better off.
Pointing out a few examples where that is not true does not refute that in a general sense.
Especially when you compare it to people getting rich by various forms of plunder, from rent-seeking to outright theft, capitalists do indeed get rich by making us all better off.
That is because we give them our money voluntarily in exchange for something we want more.
Same thing when it comes to factories raising standards of living. The vast majority of the time, something you might not want to do is, to them, preferable to the alternatives. So they rush to the factories and better their lives. Yes there are some exceptions, but again that doesn’t make the concept wrong in a general sense.
Well said,. You might also have pointed out that his examples were crap.
You still can.
I think i just had...
I mean instead of being like some dipshit in my hate club and simply declaring the examples were crap to the applause of a bunch of retards, you could explain why.
Right?
Uh, I complimented your comment - the addendum wasn't a criticism of you, (as if a criticism of something you say puts one in a 'hate club').
Ersatz, he understands.
You apparently don't.
He pointed out that merely saying my example is crap is not much more than being an empty, dipshit hater, whereas you could have explained why you think my example is crap.
The vast majority of the time, capitalists do get rich by making us all better off.
The majority of the time. Sure.
Pointing out a few examples where that is not true does not refute that in a general sense.
It refutes the point that they "only" get rich by making "all" of us better off. I know a certain type of person loves hyperbole, but it is counterproductive to converting anyone but the choir. If you are here for your ritual One Minute Hate, then bully for you.
What Stossel said was factually wrong in an important way.
capitalists do indeed get rich by making us all better off.
They "can" get rich by making us all better off. They can also get rich by selling you crap you don't actually want with good advertising. Snake oil salesmen are, in fact, capitalists.
That is because we give them our money voluntarily in exchange for something we want more.
Capitalists will often convince people to give them their money in voluntary exchange for something they think they want more, even though, often, the capitalist actually knows the product is dangerous, unhealthy, etc., and is not something that will actually improve the person's life. That's fine. I trust individuals to make the decision of what they want and what's good for them more than anyone else (children, etc., excepted), but it is simplistic, in a childish way, to pretend that it always or nearly always results in the parties to the exchange, much less everyone, being better off.
What you want to say is that regulated capitalism is the best system devised for maximizing human utility/good. But that's a mouthful and then we'll all immediately devolve into arguing over which regulations are helpful and which aren't. So you go with a literally false jingo. Have fun with your One Minute Hate and your virtue signaling jingoes.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who can think of countless examples of capitalists who got very rich by making at least some of us, and many times all of us, worse off. Tobacco companies, for example, undoubtedly, did not make “all of us” better off. There are other examplesof capitalists getting rich by killing people, as just some of the worst examples.
Only names one.
Plus it is an example of companies offering a free exchange of product for money to people with agency.
The people engaging in such an exchange obviously felt the received goods were worth the price.
1. The tobacco companies did, in fact, sell cigarettes. They gave the first ones away for free (in some circumstances) because they knew they were addictive which would greatly reduce their future customers' agency.
2. The tobacco companies, at a certain point, knew their product caused all many of health problems. They buried the research and lied to their customers. Which undercuts the idea that it was a wholesome, free exchange of equals.
3. The tobacco companies actively marketed to and targeted children, to get them addicted before they reached an age where most of us consider they have full agency.
These are just three examples of the way tobacco company executives engaged in capitalism that did not, in fact, make all of us better off.
"1. The tobacco companies did, in fact, sell cigarettes. They gave the first ones away for free (in some circumstances) because they knew they were addictive which would greatly reduce their future customers’ agency."
Propaganda.
"2. The tobacco companies, at a certain point, knew their product caused all many of health problems. They buried the research and lied to their customers. Which undercuts the idea that it was a wholesome, free exchange of equals."
The information was freely available
"3. The tobacco companies actively marketed to and targeted children, to get them addicted before they reached an age where most of us consider they have full agency."
Propaganda.
"These are just three examples of the way tobacco company executives engaged in capitalism that did not, in fact, make all of us better off."
These are three lies repeated by those who wish to blame others for their activities.
lol. You have a great sense of humor.
"Only names one."
If you can't think of another, you aren't very imaginative or knowledgeable. Also, I want to sell you some stuff.
"If you can’t think of another, you aren’t very imaginative or knowledgeable. Also, I want to sell you some stuff."
So he caught in in bullshitting.
"So he caught in in bullshitting."
LOL
Huh?
Even in 2024, people who purchase tobacco products find the pleasure from those products, greater than the risk of resultant disease.
It's the purchaser's decision whether they're "better off," not yours or Reich's.
"It’s the purchaser’s decision whether they’re “better off,” not yours or Reich’s."
Further, there are few choices in reality which do not come with some compromise or other.
Which is not responsive to the question of whether capitalists "only" get rich by making "all" of us better off.
Some of them get rich by making at least some of us worse off.
Again, what you want to say is that capitalism, as a whole, makes us all better off than any other economic system. But capitalist countries have selfish, malignant assholes in them who sell things they know cause harm both to the individual and to society. They also have imperfect people who maybe even believe what they are selling is good or useful, but turns out not to be. And capitalist systems obviously have customers with imperfect information, lack of impulse control, or poor reasoning skills which I think the comments to my original assertion demonstrates very well.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It's still okay to think it's the best economic system yet devised.
But our legal system has selfish, malignant assholes in it who make money convincing some that others are to blame for their choices.
It does! We agree on something.
It’s the purchaser’s decision whether they’re “better off,”
Well, sure, but there are plenty of people you who will answer "no" when you ask whether they were better off when tobacco companies sold them cigarettes that the company execs knew were addictive and caused cancer (and that they manipulated them to make them maximally addictive), but the customer did not. (Try really hard to understand that people lived in a time when it was not widely known that cigarettes caused all manner of health problems.)
Also, are you entirely unfamiliar with the phrase "buyer's remorse"?
Are you familiar with "bullshit"?
If I wasn't before, you've newly acquainted me with it. You've shoveled quite a bit my way.
Because those people are mostly liars. Perhaps a few fools, but mostly liars. It's easy for current cancer-ridden me to say what 1957 me should have/would have done. Most people don't have the ability to make an objective analysis in that situation.
Also, approximately zero people got their health information about cigarettes, from the cigarette company. I have done the research personally.
"It’s easy for current cancer-ridden me to say what 1957 me should have/would have done."
Hindsight being 20/20 and all. Yep. Given they have more information now, they actually might be better positioned to decide whether they were happy with their prior choice to start smoking. I mean, when I buy something, I would love to be able to consult future me to see whether the transaction will be as beneficial to me as I think it is. I know it's hard for you to imagine, but I can sometimes be wrong. Most other people too. Probably not you though.
Also, approximately zero people got their health information about cigarettes, from the cigarette company. I have done the research personally.
In 1957, neither you nor any consumer were doing research on cigarettes personally. And it isn't so much that tobacco companies were giving people health information, it was that they had health information that they didn't give their customers. This is well-documented.
I mean, I chose just the most obvious example, and you all are losing your shit.
I'll say it again: Capitalism is the best economic system known to man. It isn't perfect. It doesn't always make people rich "only" be making "all" of us better off. Sometimes hucksters convince people to buy something they really don't want and soon regret purchasing. Buyer's remorse is a term you've heard because of this obvious fact. It doesn't mean capitalism is bad. It doesn't even necessarily imply anything should be done, other than buyer beware. But it is a fact that buyer's should beware because some business people just want your money and will manipulate you into a bad choice if you aren't careful. (Which doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your choice, absent outright fraud.)
Is no one capable of nuanced thought? Must it only be capitalism good so capitalism must be perfect? Is everyone in these comment threads so dogmatic that no one ought mention that sometimes, some people engaged in capitalism do bad things that make people worse off and they make money doing those bad things? Is human nature no longer operable because capitalism?
FFS people.
If you are a lawyer, I hope no one hires you for a case where logic is required.
It is child's play to point out that anyone using "only" and "all" is almost certainly saying something untrue.
It's a pity you don't understand that universal qualifiers are almost always wrong.
It's a pity you spend so much time trying to deny the agency of individuals.
I don't deny the agency of individuals. You seem to argue that capitalism is perfect and there are no bad people who are capitalists. And also, there are no good people who make mistakes. Apparently, just engage in capitalism and only optimal, perfect decisions are made by everyone. Be serious.
"...And also, there are no good people who make mistakes..."
And YOU, with your superior intellect are here to help? Why not make you dictator? You seem to be auditioning for the position.
My intellect is only superior to yours.
This is a really weird place to audition for being dictator.
I have expressed no opinion about what should be done about imperfect outcomes in capitalist systems generally or in any specific capitalist system.
I made a very obvious and banal point that capitalism is not perfect. It sometimes helps bad people get rich doing bad things. And you and your fellow low IQ people come running in screaming that that can't be true. I feel sorry for the lot of you and anyone who actually has to reason with you.
And you lot are the strongest argument against democracy, though I agree with some wit who said democracy is the worst form of government next to every other one that's been tried.
And I expect the freak out on that statement to begin in 5.....4......3.....2.......1......
Early on, even tobacco companies sold products to people who willingly bought them and got pleasure from smoking them.
Once the facts about tobacco came out - in the late 60's - then things changed. Tobacco companies hid the facts.
But now everyone knows, so once again the tobacco companies are selling to willing buyers. (Whose early death saves all of us money in the health system)
Once the facts about tobacco came out – in the late 60’s – then things changed. Tobacco companies hid the facts.
Thank you. Some business people did an ignoble thing that made at least some people worse off. And they did it so they would make more money. That's the only point.
But you are right, it seems people are unable to understand the argument and just want to argue about whether people buying cigarettes today are responsible for their actions. Whether that is true in every case or not is not relevant to my point.
That tobacco companies hid the facts in the 50s/60s is all anyone needs to concede to establish I was and am correct.
Bad people can be capitalists too and the capitalist system doesn't stop people being bad.
It's just, in the aggregate, it's the system best able to, eventually, out these people and self-correct. But sometimes, some people in a capitalist system get rich by making others worse off. This is so obvious and banal a point, I can't believe there are so many comments disputing it.
They are all thinking with you "in the aggregate" it makes things better.
There are evil, unscrupulous people in every walk of life. In capitalist societies they do the LEAST evil due to the various corrective mechanisms, and much less compared to those authoritarian societies where they can do limitless evil.
"They are all thinking with you “in the aggregate” it makes things better."
And the inability to actually understand and respond to the specific point is a pretty dramatic indictment of their reasoning skills.
It's nice to converse with someone who at least has a clue what the conversation is actually about. Thank you.
"And the inability to actually understand and respond to the specific point is a pretty dramatic indictment of their reasoning skills."
Looking for another ambulance-chaser?
I feel sorry for the people who have to live with you.
But they didn't hide "the facts." That's the point. Everyone has known for a century or more that "cancer sticks" (the common name) weren't good for you.
So what the companies hid internal research. Suppose they also hid their internal research that the sky was blue. We already all know that anyway, we don't need them to self-flagellate and publicly agree.
"But they didn’t hide “the facts.” That’s the point. Everyone has known for a century or more that “cancer sticks” (the common name) weren’t good for you."
Learn something:
The tobacco companies engaged in propaganda to convince people that cigarettes were not dangerous and did not cause lung cancer. They did this to make money. Their dishonest campaign was successful such that even 2/3 or doctors believed their dishonest campaign. Their product killed a lot of people which had a negative effect on those people and the people who loved them. The tobacco company execs got rich. They did not make "all of us" better off. They helped kill some of us and they did it with a well-designed advertising campaign to convince people of something they knew was not true. These are just facts.
"...These are just facts."
Bullshit.
Betting all that came from "How to Sue Weekly" or perhaps a lefty source.
Started smoking in the late '50s, and at the time, there was no doubt that it was a long term health risk, leading, possibly to lung cancer. Quit before I suffered any real harm but both were choices I made.
Go peddle your authoritarian attempts to run other's lives for them elsewhere; you been busted.
"Go peddle your authoritarian attempts to run other’s lives for them elsewhere; "
Exactly how does pointing out that there are bad people in every system, including a capitalist system, indicate I want to run anyone's life? Or is this just another example of your impressively weak reasoning skills?
"you been busted."
Except for everything I said was true. And you just make things up. Good for you for quitting smoking though. It can be really hard for some people, given how addictive nicotine can be.
"...Except for everything I said was true..."
If we ignore your lies and propaganda.
Identify a single, specific factual assertion ("lie") you would like to dispute.
You're a propagandist.
"You’re a propagandist."
LOL What do you even mean?
What specific fact do you dispute?
Tobacco companies gave people exactly what they wanted.
Tobacco companies knew the science. They engaged in a concerted, expensive campaign to deny the science in order that their customers and potential customers would think their product was safer/healthier than it actually was.
Once the actual science became widely known, there was a dramatic drop in smoking. Which suggests that the tobacco companies were right that, if the actual facts about the health risks became widely known, their sales would drop because a lot of their customers and potential customers did not actually want their product once they had all the information.
So, no, there was a point in time that customers wouldn't have wanted their product if they had full information and the tobacco companies went out of their way to keep that information from the customers.
How much true value and benefit do billionaires really add to our economy? What if next week every billionaire-owned or controlled company were bought out by these companies' employees whose incentives afterward were to keep working proactively and keep the companies' doors open. I suspect Ayn Rand advocates might get apoplectic, but no one ever proved her thinking correct regarding anything she wrote. Reich's point is that at some point the collective Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Musk et al liabilities to everyone else outweigh their benefits. Who's to say he's wrong. If our economy and society were working the way they ought to in most people's opinions, Reason.com would have no further need to exist.
How much true value and benefit do billionaires really add to our economy?
Most estimates say that billionaires capture around 2% of the wealth they create.
What if next week every billionaire-owned or controlled company were bought out by these companies’ employees whose incentives afterward were to keep working proactively and keep the companies’ doors open.
Stagnation. Same thing that happens whenever socialism is attempted.
I suspect Ayn Rand advocates might get apoplectic, but no one ever proved her thinking correct regarding anything she wrote.
Yet history shows that socialism fails. Every. Single. Time. It. Is. Attempted.
Reich’s point is that at some point the collective Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Musk et al liabilities to everyone else outweigh their benefits. Who’s to say he’s wrong.
The billions of people whose lives have improved thanks to their products?
If our economy and society were working the way they ought to in most people’s opinions, Reason.com would have no further need to exist.
The Trump defenders are with you on that one.
"...The Trump defenders are with you on that one."
TDS-addled shits make such claims.
That's a big IF. The economy is so f'd up by the government that it would take WW3 to get it back to normal.
"...I suspect Ayn Rand advocates might get apoplectic, but no one ever proved her thinking correct regarding anything she wrote..."
Nothing except all of history, which lefty shits forever seem to forget.
I grew up in the 50's and 60's at time when my working class parents prospered, and their kids joined the middle class and went to college. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's economic policies made that happen. The Neo-Liberal economic policies of Friedman implemented by Ronald Reagan, as well as Reagan's destruction of unions, have ended all that. GenZ-ers struggle with school debt, Millennials struggle to buy homes. My father was an auto-mechanic. I went to college and I've owned maybe 14 homes starting with one when I was 23 years old. I have six grandchildren in their 20's and none of them has any prospect of being able to buy a home.
"...Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic policies made that happen..."
Bullshit.
Every single one of those homes you owned would be illegal to build today. Wouldn't be up to code. The people who built those homes didn't have to wait years for government approval. They just did it. The loans for what at the time were considered depreciating assets were not subsidized by the government. Whenever something turns to shit, government is almost always the culprit.
And most of those homes will still be standing in 50-100 years, while your cardboard castle will be history.
Gov-Gun THEFT = Resources
*is*
Where the zero-sum resources ideology resides.
It is a Self-Fulfilling prophecy/ideology.
'Guns' don't actually make sh*t.
Or put in the video's context; 'Guns' don't bake pies 🙂
You're wrong, John. Reich IS an economist! He's just a very BAD economist. I'm an economist, too. A degree does not make someone an economist or a lawyer or an engineer. Neither does a license from the government, despite the self-serving social narrative to the contrary from the vested interests. Being repeatedly wrong over a long period of time about almost everything would certainly not be a recommendation to believe his economic opinions.
AOC has a degree in economics too.