Ralph interviews New York Times reporter, David Gelles, about his new book, “Dirtbag Billionaire: How Yvon Chouinard Built Patagonia, Made a Fortune, and Gave It All Away.” Then, we welcome back former IRS commissioner, John Koskinen, to update us on how the Trump Administration is dismantling the IRS and stealing your personal information.
Most billionaires became billionaires by accident.. for starters as trust fund babies they all have had a hard time making it in this world,, elite private schools , colleges , club memberships , court side tickets at the u s open , or getting their 120 ft Santana docked in the right place to watch the Monte Carlo race on race day,, life can be difficult.
But why does their leader trump mean so much to them .,,,look , if "HE" can make it ,, why can't we get more and have more ?
But Don't worry billionairs..
I suspect once Trump shuts down the u s government Oct 1 and takes complete control of the treasury and the Democrats take the fall as usual , it will be billionaires pay day once again.
And remember billonionairs since you are so accident prown ,, I have know doubt you will get your fair share of all the takings .
The Chouinard piece is at best, a puff (pun intended) piece.
I've been a ski bum and dirtbag for 38 years. There are so many holes in this story.
There was a time, when Patagonia made great outdoor gear. But it's been years. Today their products are poorly designed, aren't waterproof, aren't functional, and don't last. And that's the best I can say.
What Patagonia is really good at, is selling t-shirts that end up in the landfill. It's embarrassing.
You can't take a worn out product back to a Patagonia store and get it replaced for free. What you can do, is possibly get it repaired. But Patagonia has failed here too.
Yes it's true that you can take your gear into a store or send it in to get repaired for free. But if the repair is anything but minor, they send it back to you with a bullshit "we're sorry" note.
It's also wrong that Patagonia takes a stand. Like what happened to the Bears Ears lawsuit? Or in these times, why isn't the company calling out Trump? Or why isn't Patagonia supporting the nationwide Blackout The System today? Neil Young is.
It's because the company is run by essentially a private equity mentality now.
As far as their supply chain, they publish carefully edited and produced videos that make them look good. But when the lights go out, the workers are paid slave wages. Look no further for proof than the fact that Patagonia makes nothing here in the USA.
As far Yvon goes, I have a friend who climbed with him back in the day. Yvon is a self described Libertarian, code speak for Republican. He's an asshole. This is why, and the fact that the company is worried about sales, that they're not taking a stand.
Regarding their used outlet, Worn Wear. Yes, I can send my old fleece to Worn Wear and they'll pay me for it. But they pay pennies on the dollar. One is far better off to sell their used Patagonia gear on eBay.
Yes it's true, that Patagonia was once a great company. The company was full of color. They were early with onsite childcare. But again, those days were many moons ago.
Today, the company sells nothing but sub-par clothing in safe colors. They stopped selling their legendary underwear, the one thing we all loved, claiming some sort of bs supply chain issue. They replaced their underwear with something that falls apart in less than a year.
If I was in Ventura, I'd take a few days to protest out front of their office. Hell after hearing this, I might drive out there and do it.
Ralph, you need to do better. This guy got away with a puff piece.
Income tax was sold to the public as a 2% tax on the rich.
JD Rockefeller Sr. was behind the passage of the 16th Amendment. 'Nuff said.
Get rid of Income Tax. Then working Americans can afford to feed their families, own a home, and plan for the future. Just like it was before the middle class suddenly bore the brunt of the income taxes, rather than the rich.
Libster, you do realize the United States federal government is a currency-issuing entity with a fiat, floating exchange rate currency, right?
With that in mind, the ability to fund medical care, etc. is certainly feasible as long as there aren't real resource (labor, chiefly) restrictions. And, of course, investments in health care and education can enhance labor resources. Tax revenue is not required just as tax revenue is not required to fund the current government appropriations. This is not to say there aren't useful purposes for taxation, but taxation itself does not fund government expenditures at the federal level.
Now, things are different at the state and local level, but then we're not really talking about federal taxes unless we're talking about Nixon-era 'revenue sharing', a thing which did exist in parts of the 1970s and 1980s and is largely forgotten about now even with those who were alive at the time.
The important lesson here is that the federal budget is not like a household or business budget. The United States has not been debt free since the times of the Jackson administration and has only had a handful of balanced budgets since then, none of which were especially advisable. Even bond sales/debt instruments are superfluous and a relic of the commodity standard, something which has not applied to the US in a very, very a long time.
Let me put it to you this way, do you see the military industry pushing for tax increases so they can get larger military appropriations? No, of course not. Citizens should understand what industry has known for decades now and comes from an empirical knowledge of macroeconomics, not knowledge based on antiquity and/or religious-like beliefs.
I do wish Ralph would have Stephanie Kelton on to talk about MMT....
Fed'l taxes are not needed to fund the Gov't - as you say, being a sovereign nation we can print all the money we want and spend it how we want - there's the rub, we need to put people in office who will spend it on things we the people need ....
Taxes are needed to , as they say in the Preamble of the Const. "promote the general Welfare" - which is best promoted by reducing inequality - so we do need to "tax the rich", at a higher rate than "the poor" - in the 50's, in a Rep admin., no less - the highest marginal tax rate was in the 90s, and during the next couple of decades the "middle class" grew - it wasn't successfully being robbed by that "1%" - now that middle class is being taxed at a higher rate than that 1% whose actual income is largely comprised of financial "earnings" - where the people who earn more than they make are taxed at a higher rate than the people who make more than they earn ...
It was excellent! Apparently the idea runs the political spectrum and goes all the way back to Thomas Paine!
But that was 5 years ago, and with so much happening since then, with robots and AI rapidly making incursions into the workplace, making the plight of the American worker increasingly dire, perhaps this is a good time to re-introduce the idea and push for its implementation ...
"...we need to put people in office who will spend it on things we the people need"
Yep, exactly. The public has to demand things like full employment, comprehensive healthcare reform, and nationalization of the military industry. Government already knows how to fund it, but the public demand must be there for it just as the corporate demand is there currently for corporate welfare.
"I also wish Ralph would discuss a UBI"
I would advise against UBI and advocate instead for full employment policies with a job guarantee program. Maintaining full employment with a buffer stock of employable labor through a job guarantee program can be used to set a livable wage standard for the bulk of the population (other benefits would still have to exist for those who cannot work) and it also fights inflation by maintaining productivity while stabilizing supply and demand. Contrarily, a UBI can be inflationary since it leads to a situation where government is 'helicoptering' money, which increases buying power, but then productivity is not increased which can lead to inflation. The UBI has historically been promoted by right-wing figures such as Milton Friedman and Charles Murray and really isn't progressive policy.
Stephanie Kelton, or other figures such as Randy Wray and Bill Mitchell, would be great at explaining this, and the monetary system in general, but I have pretty low expectations for these figures ever being on the RNRH. I'm sure Steve would be interested as I know he's been open-minded about this, but it seems Mr. Nader would like to stick to his 'taxpayer money' mantra and isn't interested in empiricism. It is unfortunate, but the good news is that Kelton has her best-selling book, with a new one coming, and there are plenty of free videos and blog posts online from Kelton, Wray, Mitchell, and company.
Well, Ralph likes to interview authors about their books - why not Kelton's ,and can you explain to me how Ralph's "fixation" on a "taxpayer money mantra" would obviate his discussing MMT, which has a great deal to do with "tax payer money"
As for UBI - first, that because, as it has been promoted by "right wing figures", it is, ergo, not "progressive". Sorry, but I don't feel obliged to follow any current "progressive" handbook - besides, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day (even once on a 24 hr. clock)
As for "full employment" - doing what, exactly - Graeber's "bullshit jobs"? The pay may be good, but the work is soul killing, and what is a "livable wage", - not so long ago the "fight for 15" was all the rage, now that is fast fading as sufficient to provide food, clothing, shelter for a family in different parts of the country, even perhaps with both parents working - and though "other benefits would still have to exist for those who cannot work", would they be benefits sufficient to provide good food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care for themselves and their families?
With regard to a negative effect on "productivity", aside from the fact that we are producing way too much already, is a single parent who could work, but stays home taking care of the kids "unproductive"?
As for increasing inflation - ha, that is taking care of itself all on its own -
And even as "bullshit jobs", let alone decent fulfilling ones, are disappearing, as the private sector replaces manufacturing ones with robots and service ones with AI - where are these "guaranteed" jobs that, I assume, the Gov't would provide .. the CCC, e.g., under the old New Deal, was great, but do you think there is a modern job equivalent in an economy where the private sector is tripping over itself to shed them?
I think UBI is an idea whose time has come. is certainly worthy of robust discussion, and i think Ralph could do it, if he chose ...
It would make government much less expensive because it would replace the functions of many agencies dealing with the recurring symptoms of things like inflation, unemployment and jobs that do not pay a living wage with one agency to address those symptoms and doesn't require the endless, expensive and non-productive qualification for benefits process.
What is soul killing about jobs is working 40-60 plus hours a week and only making enough to live paycheck to paycheck and knowing that bumps in the road (inflation, unemployment) for those earning a living wage are an unavoidable abyss for you that will take years to recover from while any relief the government provides will not last for years.
“With regard to a negative effect on "productivity", aside from the fact that we are producing way too much already”
The problem here is that you are equating productivity with capitalism. Productivity is much more than that. Healthcare is productivity. Education is productivity. Infrastructure is productivity. Government service is productivity. The creation of food is productivity.
You talk about ‘bullshit jobs’. Those are counter-productive jobs. Jobs in the FIRE sector (finance, real estate, insurance) which exist to make profits off of speculative economic activity rather than productive economic activity should be regulated out of the economy or at least limited to a point where the negative aspects are removed as much as possible. This is the very point of full employment and labor reform in general. More labor needs to be in the jobs described in the above paragraph rather than in this paragraph.
While a UBI might be viable, and even then I’d be skeptical, in a labor landscape where technology has almost completely eliminated human labor, but we are not there. We’re not even close to that. Even in a country where a large portion of the population have little access to healthcare, there is a healthcare labor shortage. If you increase access to healthcare, those shortages will be even more stark. AI isn’t going to fix that problem, only better allocation of labor will fix that problem. The same is true with education. In the area where I live, Houston, there is a shortage of qualified teachers. Again, AI isn’t going to fix this problem. Only better allocation of labor will fix the problem.
I dare to say that anyone who has called a federal government office asking for assistance, before and certainly after DOGE, will realize that there is still a need for increased human labor in the government sector. The same is likely true for many state and local government offices. Are your local municipal utilities, public safety, public transport, and so forth functions fully provisioned on the labor side or could they use more help?
To say that ‘work’ is bad for people is a completely bourgeois position. As we can see after the COVID lockdown period, and the research has said this all along, work has many beneficial aspects on humanity. Now, of course, work should be regulated such that people can maintain a healthy work-life balance and be able to raise children and so forth. This regulation only works when those who do work are productive or else you run into real resource restrictions which are, of course, inflationary.
The advantage of the job guarantee is that it provides jobs for those who want them during slack periods in the economy. This maintains macro demand and lead to a faster economic recovery. During the recovery phase, employers will want labor which is work-ready. We know from research that employers prefer to hire workers who are already employed and the JG helps in that regard. With a buffer stock of employable labor, employers will have an easier time meeting productivity goals which then fights slack supply which often happens during economic recoveries.
The JG also sets a baseline income level for labor even without there being a minimum wage. This stabilizes labor prices. While it could lead to one-time price increases when the JG is implemented, the long-term situation will be greater price stability and, thus, lower inflation.
UBI schemes are devised under circumstances where right-wingers envision sectors of the population being unemployable because government has not educated them and otherwise provided them sufficient resources. The helicoptering of money from an UBI then provides these people an ability to support the capitalist economy while theoretically providing the lowest members of society an opportunity to have enough to survive. I fail to see how this is even remotely progressive. The progressive solution is to make as many people in the population a part of a productive economy. After all, if we all want education and healthcare, we need people to work in those sectors.
Many billionaires like the Hippie era, the anti-authoritarian talk, the "free love", the freedom talk and anti-military talk. But they're spineless, you can't accumulate millions and billions in assets without ignoring the voice of conscience and exploiting large numbers of other human beings. The question on Patagonia is, who are their customers, who are buying their expensive clothing? Many of us are content with used clothing, natural fabrics, that can be bought for $10 or so for shirts or pants. I'd much rather give the extra money to a quality humanitarian charity than Patagonia or LL Bean, though their ideals are useful, their propaganda is not for this time with their glossy sales brochures and smiling models.
On the IRS, whether you interview Everson, Koskinen, Rossotti, or Trump's guy Rettig who was apparently too tight on enforcing taxes for him--many lives have been economically destroyed by IRS mismanagement. These are not wealthy corporations or fraudsters but confused Americans who were conned by the tax protesters and their legal swill. So let's not kid ourselves, paying taxes may be the cost of civilization some decades ago, but not now with the galloping debt clock with staggering trillions of debts: https://www.usdebtclock.org/ The US will never pay its debts, the dollar will finally crash and the economy likely with it.
Thank you Ralph. You mention that Patagonia makes political contributions. Does the company, and any associated trusts, make this information available to the public. Not by referral to government records, but by the company itself? Capitalism is a haven for greedy Sociopaths and Fascists, and no amount of lipstick can ever make this pig look good. If America continues to swallow corporate propaganda (apparently, Patagonia can be excluded) and blindly elect this Capitalism's Red and Blue cabal there can be no change. The system must be changed, re, Professor Richard Wolff.
My comments are related to FICA tax avoidance and disclosure.
Two news item were related to the Ellison family's potential to become major players in the media. It has been reported that Oracle's Larry Ellison is one of several tech billionaires who has avoided paying FICA taxes. His base salary at Oracle is $1 per year. His compensation is primarily from non-wage sources, like incentive stock options, that are not subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.
The interview with former IRS Former IRS commissioner John Koskinen mentioned the Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 restriction against disclosure. In 1968 the Treasury released a survey that revealed that "381 Americans with income above $200,000" paid no federal income tax for the year 1967. This revelation led to the Minimum Tax in 1969 and later the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). A similar survey today on how many wealthy individuals are avoiding FICA taxes or federal income taxes would not be possible today because Section 6103 was inserted into the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
An AI query generated this response: "Section 6103’s universal confidentiality ensures the details of FICA tax avoidance or noncompliance by wealthy individuals and companies remain beyond public reach unless enforcement leads to a public court action, making meaningful public oversight extremely difficult." Because of Section 6103 we are unable to determine the magnitude of federal revenue loss from tax loopholes that enable mega-billionaires Elon Musk and Larry Ellison avoid paying taxes. We are also unable to determine the magnitude of revenue loss from the Roth IRA. The current Roth IRA is mostly likely to cost the U.S. Treasury trillions of dollars and bankrupt the United States.
I hope that when Ralph does listener questions he will address the major flaw in his strategies for dealing with big money corrupting our political process which involves legislation (or constitutional amendments) to be passed by big money legislators.
The problem with big money corrupting our political process is that the big money legislators only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests. If that wasn't true then big money in our political process would not be a problem.
The big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics so the big money legislators will never pass legislation to get the big money out of our political process.
In order to pass such legislation we must first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.
We can solve the problem without legislation by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 (as described in more detail in many comments here over the years).
This can grow and be effective in just a few elections cycles or we can spend another 40-50 years in futile efforts trying to get the big money legislators to pass legislation to solve the problem while it continues to get worse.
Ralph has said that politicians want our votes more than big money.
This is a basic principle of democracy. If you say that demanding small donor candidates and enforcing this demand with our votes will not work then you are saying that democracy will not work.
Citizens need to say to politicians what Patagonia said to potential suppliers that if you do not meet our standards of running small donor campaigns then you will not get our votes.
Ralph needs to emulate Patagonia and examine his own failing of expecting the big money legislators to pass legislation they are "paid" to not pass which has not worked for the last 40-50 years and help organize citizens to use the power of our votes forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or getting our votes.
"The greenest kilowatt hour that can be produced is the one that is never burned to begin with." Or something to that effect, was a comment Ralph made in an episode on renewable energy or something similar. By analogy, it seems appropriate here. The path taken by Patagonia does not appear to be one to emulate.
Consider the coordination costs. Those costs appear infinite because the story as told is extraordinarily path dependent. Building a successful entrepreneur owned company is difficult to begin with. Here's the kicker: even if it could be emulated it would not represent the equivalent of the "greenest kilowatt hour."
Yvon Chouinard started this company on a shoe string it would appear. Maybe even less than a shoe string given the poverty in which he was born. Perhaps, as many stories go, this business was even started in a garage? Wouldn't that be perfect?
I suggest that such an origin story establishes that capital was incidental. Not meaningless. But incidental. And I believe that has profound implications.
The greenest kilowatt hour comparison exists. It does everything positive that this episode on Patagonia touted and a whole lot more. More? Because Patagonia's "doing good" has to be run through additional layers of transaction costs only to be deployed away from the original source of value - the consumer.
But it is harder to see specifically because it does represent the greenest kilowatt hour. For a "Lindy" (Nassim Taleb) explanation, see Bastiat: That which is seen, and that which is not seen.
If this reaches anyone who wants to know what this thing is (Ralph or Steve), give me a shout. It isn't hiding. But it is obscured because individuals generally don't seek to detect that which is unseen. Incentives will provide the light.
Even if we assume over the objections of some of the commentators that Patagonia is what was depicted, it still got there because it tossed a brick through consumer windows to extract the resources in which to do its good works. As a result, some very useful wealth is actually destroyed regardless of whether any wealth was created. That wealth destruction can be seen in communities everywhere when compared to communities where Patagonia (and any other company producing similar products regardless of good works) is completely irrelevant.
Why are liberals/progressives/socialists/communists obsessed with naming the Gaza war a genocide but care not a bit about real genocides like the one perpetrated in Sudan by Muslims against non-Muslims? Or by Han Chines against Uyghurs? Or by Maynmar Burmese against Muslim Rohyingya?
Is it normal for a "Big Four" accounting firm to handle Medicaid enrollies and also gov. records a University and all the businesses in that state?
Most billionaires became billionaires by accident.. for starters as trust fund babies they all have had a hard time making it in this world,, elite private schools , colleges , club memberships , court side tickets at the u s open , or getting their 120 ft Santana docked in the right place to watch the Monte Carlo race on race day,, life can be difficult.
But why does their leader trump mean so much to them .,,,look , if "HE" can make it ,, why can't we get more and have more ?
But Don't worry billionairs..
I suspect once Trump shuts down the u s government Oct 1 and takes complete control of the treasury and the Democrats take the fall as usual , it will be billionaires pay day once again.
And remember billonionairs since you are so accident prown ,, I have know doubt you will get your fair share of all the takings .
. good luck America have a great day my friends
The Chouinard piece is at best, a puff (pun intended) piece.
I've been a ski bum and dirtbag for 38 years. There are so many holes in this story.
There was a time, when Patagonia made great outdoor gear. But it's been years. Today their products are poorly designed, aren't waterproof, aren't functional, and don't last. And that's the best I can say.
What Patagonia is really good at, is selling t-shirts that end up in the landfill. It's embarrassing.
You can't take a worn out product back to a Patagonia store and get it replaced for free. What you can do, is possibly get it repaired. But Patagonia has failed here too.
Yes it's true that you can take your gear into a store or send it in to get repaired for free. But if the repair is anything but minor, they send it back to you with a bullshit "we're sorry" note.
It's also wrong that Patagonia takes a stand. Like what happened to the Bears Ears lawsuit? Or in these times, why isn't the company calling out Trump? Or why isn't Patagonia supporting the nationwide Blackout The System today? Neil Young is.
https://blackoutthesystem.com
It's because the company is run by essentially a private equity mentality now.
As far as their supply chain, they publish carefully edited and produced videos that make them look good. But when the lights go out, the workers are paid slave wages. Look no further for proof than the fact that Patagonia makes nothing here in the USA.
As far Yvon goes, I have a friend who climbed with him back in the day. Yvon is a self described Libertarian, code speak for Republican. He's an asshole. This is why, and the fact that the company is worried about sales, that they're not taking a stand.
Regarding their used outlet, Worn Wear. Yes, I can send my old fleece to Worn Wear and they'll pay me for it. But they pay pennies on the dollar. One is far better off to sell their used Patagonia gear on eBay.
Yes it's true, that Patagonia was once a great company. The company was full of color. They were early with onsite childcare. But again, those days were many moons ago.
Today, the company sells nothing but sub-par clothing in safe colors. They stopped selling their legendary underwear, the one thing we all loved, claiming some sort of bs supply chain issue. They replaced their underwear with something that falls apart in less than a year.
If I was in Ventura, I'd take a few days to protest out front of their office. Hell after hearing this, I might drive out there and do it.
Ralph, you need to do better. This guy got away with a puff piece.
In other words, Ralph fell for it.
I love Ralph.
Maybe it was the producer who “fell for it”?
Income tax was sold to the public as a 2% tax on the rich.
JD Rockefeller Sr. was behind the passage of the 16th Amendment. 'Nuff said.
Get rid of Income Tax. Then working Americans can afford to feed their families, own a home, and plan for the future. Just like it was before the middle class suddenly bore the brunt of the income taxes, rather than the rich.
As I have commented before, we need to increase the estate tax and reduce or eliminated the loopholes that enable the rich to avoid the estate tax.
Withput income tax, how do you expect society to pay for public services like medical care, education, housing, roads etc etc???
Libster, you do realize the United States federal government is a currency-issuing entity with a fiat, floating exchange rate currency, right?
With that in mind, the ability to fund medical care, etc. is certainly feasible as long as there aren't real resource (labor, chiefly) restrictions. And, of course, investments in health care and education can enhance labor resources. Tax revenue is not required just as tax revenue is not required to fund the current government appropriations. This is not to say there aren't useful purposes for taxation, but taxation itself does not fund government expenditures at the federal level.
Now, things are different at the state and local level, but then we're not really talking about federal taxes unless we're talking about Nixon-era 'revenue sharing', a thing which did exist in parts of the 1970s and 1980s and is largely forgotten about now even with those who were alive at the time.
The important lesson here is that the federal budget is not like a household or business budget. The United States has not been debt free since the times of the Jackson administration and has only had a handful of balanced budgets since then, none of which were especially advisable. Even bond sales/debt instruments are superfluous and a relic of the commodity standard, something which has not applied to the US in a very, very a long time.
Let me put it to you this way, do you see the military industry pushing for tax increases so they can get larger military appropriations? No, of course not. Citizens should understand what industry has known for decades now and comes from an empirical knowledge of macroeconomics, not knowledge based on antiquity and/or religious-like beliefs.
I do wish Ralph would have Stephanie Kelton on to talk about MMT....
Fed'l taxes are not needed to fund the Gov't - as you say, being a sovereign nation we can print all the money we want and spend it how we want - there's the rub, we need to put people in office who will spend it on things we the people need ....
Taxes are needed to , as they say in the Preamble of the Const. "promote the general Welfare" - which is best promoted by reducing inequality - so we do need to "tax the rich", at a higher rate than "the poor" - in the 50's, in a Rep admin., no less - the highest marginal tax rate was in the 90s, and during the next couple of decades the "middle class" grew - it wasn't successfully being robbed by that "1%" - now that middle class is being taxed at a higher rate than that 1% whose actual income is largely comprised of financial "earnings" - where the people who earn more than they make are taxed at a higher rate than the people who make more than they earn ...
I also wish Ralph would discuss a UBI ....
Put UBI in the search and you'll find a number of episodes over the years.
Thank you very much! I did and came up with Feb. 20, '20
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/maximum-wageuniversal-basic-income-f3b - with a transcript! (P.S. - I liked the format :) where each speaker was identified before his remarks, made the conversation much easier to follow ..)
It was excellent! Apparently the idea runs the political spectrum and goes all the way back to Thomas Paine!
But that was 5 years ago, and with so much happening since then, with robots and AI rapidly making incursions into the workplace, making the plight of the American worker increasingly dire, perhaps this is a good time to re-introduce the idea and push for its implementation ...
"...we need to put people in office who will spend it on things we the people need"
Yep, exactly. The public has to demand things like full employment, comprehensive healthcare reform, and nationalization of the military industry. Government already knows how to fund it, but the public demand must be there for it just as the corporate demand is there currently for corporate welfare.
"I also wish Ralph would discuss a UBI"
I would advise against UBI and advocate instead for full employment policies with a job guarantee program. Maintaining full employment with a buffer stock of employable labor through a job guarantee program can be used to set a livable wage standard for the bulk of the population (other benefits would still have to exist for those who cannot work) and it also fights inflation by maintaining productivity while stabilizing supply and demand. Contrarily, a UBI can be inflationary since it leads to a situation where government is 'helicoptering' money, which increases buying power, but then productivity is not increased which can lead to inflation. The UBI has historically been promoted by right-wing figures such as Milton Friedman and Charles Murray and really isn't progressive policy.
Stephanie Kelton, or other figures such as Randy Wray and Bill Mitchell, would be great at explaining this, and the monetary system in general, but I have pretty low expectations for these figures ever being on the RNRH. I'm sure Steve would be interested as I know he's been open-minded about this, but it seems Mr. Nader would like to stick to his 'taxpayer money' mantra and isn't interested in empiricism. It is unfortunate, but the good news is that Kelton has her best-selling book, with a new one coming, and there are plenty of free videos and blog posts online from Kelton, Wray, Mitchell, and company.
Well, Ralph likes to interview authors about their books - why not Kelton's ,and can you explain to me how Ralph's "fixation" on a "taxpayer money mantra" would obviate his discussing MMT, which has a great deal to do with "tax payer money"
As for UBI - first, that because, as it has been promoted by "right wing figures", it is, ergo, not "progressive". Sorry, but I don't feel obliged to follow any current "progressive" handbook - besides, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day (even once on a 24 hr. clock)
As for "full employment" - doing what, exactly - Graeber's "bullshit jobs"? The pay may be good, but the work is soul killing, and what is a "livable wage", - not so long ago the "fight for 15" was all the rage, now that is fast fading as sufficient to provide food, clothing, shelter for a family in different parts of the country, even perhaps with both parents working - and though "other benefits would still have to exist for those who cannot work", would they be benefits sufficient to provide good food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care for themselves and their families?
With regard to a negative effect on "productivity", aside from the fact that we are producing way too much already, is a single parent who could work, but stays home taking care of the kids "unproductive"?
As for increasing inflation - ha, that is taking care of itself all on its own -
And even as "bullshit jobs", let alone decent fulfilling ones, are disappearing, as the private sector replaces manufacturing ones with robots and service ones with AI - where are these "guaranteed" jobs that, I assume, the Gov't would provide .. the CCC, e.g., under the old New Deal, was great, but do you think there is a modern job equivalent in an economy where the private sector is tripping over itself to shed them?
I think UBI is an idea whose time has come. is certainly worthy of robust discussion, and i think Ralph could do it, if he chose ...
UBI should be called Social Security for All.
It would make government much less expensive because it would replace the functions of many agencies dealing with the recurring symptoms of things like inflation, unemployment and jobs that do not pay a living wage with one agency to address those symptoms and doesn't require the endless, expensive and non-productive qualification for benefits process.
What is soul killing about jobs is working 40-60 plus hours a week and only making enough to live paycheck to paycheck and knowing that bumps in the road (inflation, unemployment) for those earning a living wage are an unavoidable abyss for you that will take years to recover from while any relief the government provides will not last for years.
“With regard to a negative effect on "productivity", aside from the fact that we are producing way too much already”
The problem here is that you are equating productivity with capitalism. Productivity is much more than that. Healthcare is productivity. Education is productivity. Infrastructure is productivity. Government service is productivity. The creation of food is productivity.
You talk about ‘bullshit jobs’. Those are counter-productive jobs. Jobs in the FIRE sector (finance, real estate, insurance) which exist to make profits off of speculative economic activity rather than productive economic activity should be regulated out of the economy or at least limited to a point where the negative aspects are removed as much as possible. This is the very point of full employment and labor reform in general. More labor needs to be in the jobs described in the above paragraph rather than in this paragraph.
While a UBI might be viable, and even then I’d be skeptical, in a labor landscape where technology has almost completely eliminated human labor, but we are not there. We’re not even close to that. Even in a country where a large portion of the population have little access to healthcare, there is a healthcare labor shortage. If you increase access to healthcare, those shortages will be even more stark. AI isn’t going to fix that problem, only better allocation of labor will fix that problem. The same is true with education. In the area where I live, Houston, there is a shortage of qualified teachers. Again, AI isn’t going to fix this problem. Only better allocation of labor will fix the problem.
I dare to say that anyone who has called a federal government office asking for assistance, before and certainly after DOGE, will realize that there is still a need for increased human labor in the government sector. The same is likely true for many state and local government offices. Are your local municipal utilities, public safety, public transport, and so forth functions fully provisioned on the labor side or could they use more help?
To say that ‘work’ is bad for people is a completely bourgeois position. As we can see after the COVID lockdown period, and the research has said this all along, work has many beneficial aspects on humanity. Now, of course, work should be regulated such that people can maintain a healthy work-life balance and be able to raise children and so forth. This regulation only works when those who do work are productive or else you run into real resource restrictions which are, of course, inflationary.
The advantage of the job guarantee is that it provides jobs for those who want them during slack periods in the economy. This maintains macro demand and lead to a faster economic recovery. During the recovery phase, employers will want labor which is work-ready. We know from research that employers prefer to hire workers who are already employed and the JG helps in that regard. With a buffer stock of employable labor, employers will have an easier time meeting productivity goals which then fights slack supply which often happens during economic recoveries.
The JG also sets a baseline income level for labor even without there being a minimum wage. This stabilizes labor prices. While it could lead to one-time price increases when the JG is implemented, the long-term situation will be greater price stability and, thus, lower inflation.
UBI schemes are devised under circumstances where right-wingers envision sectors of the population being unemployable because government has not educated them and otherwise provided them sufficient resources. The helicoptering of money from an UBI then provides these people an ability to support the capitalist economy while theoretically providing the lowest members of society an opportunity to have enough to survive. I fail to see how this is even remotely progressive. The progressive solution is to make as many people in the population a part of a productive economy. After all, if we all want education and healthcare, we need people to work in those sectors.
Many billionaires like the Hippie era, the anti-authoritarian talk, the "free love", the freedom talk and anti-military talk. But they're spineless, you can't accumulate millions and billions in assets without ignoring the voice of conscience and exploiting large numbers of other human beings. The question on Patagonia is, who are their customers, who are buying their expensive clothing? Many of us are content with used clothing, natural fabrics, that can be bought for $10 or so for shirts or pants. I'd much rather give the extra money to a quality humanitarian charity than Patagonia or LL Bean, though their ideals are useful, their propaganda is not for this time with their glossy sales brochures and smiling models.
On the IRS, whether you interview Everson, Koskinen, Rossotti, or Trump's guy Rettig who was apparently too tight on enforcing taxes for him--many lives have been economically destroyed by IRS mismanagement. These are not wealthy corporations or fraudsters but confused Americans who were conned by the tax protesters and their legal swill. So let's not kid ourselves, paying taxes may be the cost of civilization some decades ago, but not now with the galloping debt clock with staggering trillions of debts: https://www.usdebtclock.org/ The US will never pay its debts, the dollar will finally crash and the economy likely with it.
Thank you Ralph. You mention that Patagonia makes political contributions. Does the company, and any associated trusts, make this information available to the public. Not by referral to government records, but by the company itself? Capitalism is a haven for greedy Sociopaths and Fascists, and no amount of lipstick can ever make this pig look good. If America continues to swallow corporate propaganda (apparently, Patagonia can be excluded) and blindly elect this Capitalism's Red and Blue cabal there can be no change. The system must be changed, re, Professor Richard Wolff.
My comments are related to FICA tax avoidance and disclosure.
Two news item were related to the Ellison family's potential to become major players in the media. It has been reported that Oracle's Larry Ellison is one of several tech billionaires who has avoided paying FICA taxes. His base salary at Oracle is $1 per year. His compensation is primarily from non-wage sources, like incentive stock options, that are not subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.
The interview with former IRS Former IRS commissioner John Koskinen mentioned the Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 restriction against disclosure. In 1968 the Treasury released a survey that revealed that "381 Americans with income above $200,000" paid no federal income tax for the year 1967. This revelation led to the Minimum Tax in 1969 and later the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). A similar survey today on how many wealthy individuals are avoiding FICA taxes or federal income taxes would not be possible today because Section 6103 was inserted into the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
An AI query generated this response: "Section 6103’s universal confidentiality ensures the details of FICA tax avoidance or noncompliance by wealthy individuals and companies remain beyond public reach unless enforcement leads to a public court action, making meaningful public oversight extremely difficult." Because of Section 6103 we are unable to determine the magnitude of federal revenue loss from tax loopholes that enable mega-billionaires Elon Musk and Larry Ellison avoid paying taxes. We are also unable to determine the magnitude of revenue loss from the Roth IRA. The current Roth IRA is mostly likely to cost the U.S. Treasury trillions of dollars and bankrupt the United States.
I hope that when Ralph does listener questions he will address the major flaw in his strategies for dealing with big money corrupting our political process which involves legislation (or constitutional amendments) to be passed by big money legislators.
The problem with big money corrupting our political process is that the big money legislators only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests. If that wasn't true then big money in our political process would not be a problem.
The big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics so the big money legislators will never pass legislation to get the big money out of our political process.
In order to pass such legislation we must first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.
We can solve the problem without legislation by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 (as described in more detail in many comments here over the years).
This can grow and be effective in just a few elections cycles or we can spend another 40-50 years in futile efforts trying to get the big money legislators to pass legislation to solve the problem while it continues to get worse.
Ralph has said that politicians want our votes more than big money.
This is a basic principle of democracy. If you say that demanding small donor candidates and enforcing this demand with our votes will not work then you are saying that democracy will not work.
Citizens need to say to politicians what Patagonia said to potential suppliers that if you do not meet our standards of running small donor campaigns then you will not get our votes.
Ralph needs to emulate Patagonia and examine his own failing of expecting the big money legislators to pass legislation they are "paid" to not pass which has not worked for the last 40-50 years and help organize citizens to use the power of our votes forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or getting our votes.
Pricewaterhousecooper
Very good.
"The greenest kilowatt hour that can be produced is the one that is never burned to begin with." Or something to that effect, was a comment Ralph made in an episode on renewable energy or something similar. By analogy, it seems appropriate here. The path taken by Patagonia does not appear to be one to emulate.
Consider the coordination costs. Those costs appear infinite because the story as told is extraordinarily path dependent. Building a successful entrepreneur owned company is difficult to begin with. Here's the kicker: even if it could be emulated it would not represent the equivalent of the "greenest kilowatt hour."
Yvon Chouinard started this company on a shoe string it would appear. Maybe even less than a shoe string given the poverty in which he was born. Perhaps, as many stories go, this business was even started in a garage? Wouldn't that be perfect?
I suggest that such an origin story establishes that capital was incidental. Not meaningless. But incidental. And I believe that has profound implications.
The greenest kilowatt hour comparison exists. It does everything positive that this episode on Patagonia touted and a whole lot more. More? Because Patagonia's "doing good" has to be run through additional layers of transaction costs only to be deployed away from the original source of value - the consumer.
But it is harder to see specifically because it does represent the greenest kilowatt hour. For a "Lindy" (Nassim Taleb) explanation, see Bastiat: That which is seen, and that which is not seen.
If this reaches anyone who wants to know what this thing is (Ralph or Steve), give me a shout. It isn't hiding. But it is obscured because individuals generally don't seek to detect that which is unseen. Incentives will provide the light.
Even if we assume over the objections of some of the commentators that Patagonia is what was depicted, it still got there because it tossed a brick through consumer windows to extract the resources in which to do its good works. As a result, some very useful wealth is actually destroyed regardless of whether any wealth was created. That wealth destruction can be seen in communities everywhere when compared to communities where Patagonia (and any other company producing similar products regardless of good works) is completely irrelevant.
Why are liberals/progressives/socialists/communists obsessed with naming the Gaza war a genocide but care not a bit about real genocides like the one perpetrated in Sudan by Muslims against non-Muslims? Or by Han Chines against Uyghurs? Or by Maynmar Burmese against Muslim Rohyingya?
Your comment is Whataboutism.