[deiznof]

Agreed, it's a purely reductionist take on taxes while showing complete ignorance on who decides how much people earn in society. I wish people would stop listening to Sowell like he was the Jesus of economics. Outside of theory, he fumbles all the time.

[alexarnesen]

I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?

[spaetzleesser]

For the higher income classes it’s that class themselves who decides how much they are earn. They sit on each others’ boards, run investment funds and so on. They mingle with politicians who then create favorable laws.

There is is no input from people with lower income. It’s an insider group that negotiates and deals with itself.

[deiznof]

It completely ignores political corruption 100%. It completely ignores union stomping over the past 60 years, among other things. This is what I mean by his ultra reductionist views, he refuses to consider external factors when he talks about social issues, which is weird for a top economist to do.

[alexarnesen]

I think some people in this thread are recalling interviews or talk shows with Sowell, while others are referring to his books. In video I have seen of him, I can agree he can be flippant on some topics... maybe the format of the television interview or "debate" or "round-table" would leave the impression that he hasn't thought carefully about these things. I'd recommend his books and essays.

The notes on political corruption and union stomping over the past 60 years are intriguing, do you have any good references to solid academic sources on these or related topics?

[zo1]

Anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and individuals that hold high-amounts of those related beliefs have very few basic laws that govern their world views (1-3, depending on who you ask). If you believe that the fruits of your labor are yours and yours alone with no exception, then no amount of talk of "union stomping", "historic injustice" and "external factors" will change the interpretation of the fact that taxation is violating that principle.

So I fully understand how you think his views are utra-reductionist.

[hajile]

The corruption issue is well-known, but not relevant. Corruption has been demonstrably worse in non-capitalist societies. Likewise, the biggest issue with capitalism is actually the lack of perfect information (and manipulation of information), but once again, non-capitalist systems have at least as big of an issue here (usually far worse).

The partial solution for information involves requiring more disclosures, having a smaller government with higher transparence, and (historically impossible) making that information easily available and publicly searchable on the internet. This also tends to help reduce the corruption issue.

A complete solution for either corruption or information transfer seems out of reach at the moment.

The short answer is simply that of all the systems we've tried as humans, capitalism (though imperfect) is the least worst and results in the least human suffering.